Lenswork - what do you think?

[tim atherton]

Just read these blog thoughts on Lenswork:

http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=732

4. Lenswork: I know it isn’t just me, because I’ve had private correspondence about this as well, but Lenswork appears to be losing its touch. For me this is crunch time as I have the second subscription renewal reminder. And the answer is ‘no’, I think. Brooks Jensen the podcaster is bewailing the failings of photo businesses, yet BJ the publisher seems to be falling into the very trap that he is warning others against.

I'm starting to agree - (I've looked at the last 4 issues on the newsstands and though nope - not really worth forking out for. It used to be good, but now it does seem rather moribund

[Doug Dolde]

The first feature in LW 70 called Wakarimasen left me scratching my head. Brook's own work...I just don't get it.

[Oren Grad]

I started a subscription last year but was bored after the first couple of issues, so I didn't renew.

[PViapiano]

Sorry, but I totally disagree with all of the above.

Of course, occasionally you will run into a portfolio that doesn't excite as much as others do, but for issue after issue, it's hard to find as outstanding work anywhere else on the news stand and produced and printed so well.

In the latest issue, you may not care for Brooks' work, but Hiroshi Watanabe's portraits of Kabuki actors are a gem and Josef Tornick's portfolio revisiting the Hebrides in homage to Paul Strand is a really interesting project with beautiful images.

Peter Steinhauer's images of Vietnam, Eirik Holmoyvik's Norwegian portfolio, Eugene Johnson's third world portraits, Alan Ross' stuff, Jonathan Moller's images of Guatemala...these are all in the last 6 issues or so, amazing stuff and inspiring beyond words!

[Aggie]

Can't please all the people all the time. If you want to see some very different Brooks Jensen photography, he will be one of our portfolios in the next issue of Emulsion. Yeah he has a portfolio of analog work. I think highly of Brooks. He goes the extra mile to help. He kept me sane for a couple of years when I wanted to pull what hair I have left, out.

[Jim Galli]

...I just don't get it.

That's what Wakarimasen means. I enjoy abstract photography and I enjoy Lenswork. It's one of only 2 that my wife knows to always renew. But then, I just like looking at other peoples pictures.

[D. Bryant]

That's what Wakarimasen means. I enjoy abstract photography and I enjoy Lenswork. It's one of only 2 that my wife knows to always renew. Bet then, I just like looking at other peoples pictures.

Two thumbs up for Lens Work.

Don Bryant

[Greg Lockrey]

I enjoyed those abstracts too. And apparently I'm in good company. ;)

[David Luttmann]

Two thumbs up for Lens Work.

Don Bryant

Three thumbs up from me.....

[Brian K]

I liked the Jensen abstracts, I thought they were well done. I have few issues or complaints about the magazine, there really are very few like it.

[Merg Ross]

This is the best issue of Lenswork that I have seen in recent years. Congratulations, Brooks.

[Chris Strobel]

As fine as the reproductions are, they are just too dawgone small for my failing eyes.

[Gary J. McCutcheon]

I think Lenswork is one of the best photography publications out there. I find little to criticize.

[Brian Ellis]

I've subscribed to LensWork for about 12 years. I've ended subscriptions to most of the photography magazines to which I used to subscribe and others are no longer in existence. But LensWork is one of only three I've kept. I think it's still an outstanding publication though the current issue wasn't one of my favorites. Except for the Kabuki portraits nothing else did much for me but that happens with any publication now and then. They don't run the content by me before publishing it. If they did I'm sure they wouldn't have survived anywhere near as long as they have.

[Ron Marshall]

I am half-way through my second one year subscription. I enjoyed many of the issues the first year, but very few the second. I can't say if it is a trend or just a temporary paucity of the subjects I enjoy.

[roteague]

In the latest issue, you may not care for Brooks' work, but Hiroshi Watanabe's portraits of Kabuki actors are a gem and Josef Tornick's portfolio revisiting the Hebrides in homage to Paul Strand is a really interesting project with beautiful images.

I agree with you for the most part. I enjoyed Watanabe's portfolio. However, I really prefer to buy the magazine an issue at a time - some issues there is just too much digital, and I don't buy those.

[David Luttmann]

I agree with you for the most part. I enjoyed Watanabe's portfolio. However, I really prefer to buy the magazine an issue at a time - some issues there is just too much digital, and I don't buy those.

Kind of sad to think someone looks at the capture method to decide if a beautiful image is worthy of their attention.

[roteague]

Kind of sad to think someone looks at the capture method to decide if a beautiful image is worthy of their attention.

You are welcome to your opinion. It is obvious I look for something more in an image than you do.

[r.e.]

I have looked at this magazine on the newstand every time that it comes out for four years. I like to support photography publications, and I always look for a reason to buy it, but I have never done so. To me, it is caught in a very old, very tired time warp.

[Turner Reich]

I use to buy it at the book store but it hasn't shown up since the first of the year so, I don't miss it. I is printed very well but the content, I am not into digital and wacko images so there is little there of value for me.

[David Luttmann]

You are welcome to your opinion. It is obvious I look for something more in an image than you do.

Could you explain what you're looking for? I am curious as to how you'd react if the image you loved said it was film, only to find out it was a mistake and that digital capture was used. Or, how you would judge an image you loved if the capture method wasn't stated.

I can understand having an interest in the methods, but to simpy state you won't buy a magazine regardless of the beauty of the images because of some preconceived notion or bias as to capture method sounds pretty shallow.

[roteague]

I can understand having an interest in the methods, but to simpy state you won't buy a magazine regardless of the beauty of the images because of some preconceived notion or bias as to capture method sounds pretty shallow.

Simple, I don't accept digital as a basis for fine art. My opinion. So, I choose not to support it, whenever possible.

Frankly, it sounds pretty shallow to me to decide that someone else's opinion isn't valuable, simply because it is different from yours.

[John Voss]

Jensen has made it clear repeatedly that medium of capture (geez, I hate that term) is just not considered at all when choosing the work to be published, and I believe him. In fact, Lenswork seems to impart its own look to everything that is published therein to such an extent that I doubt that some of the actual images look as good as they do in the magazine. Yes, there are some portfolios that don't appeal to me at all, but I continue to subscribe and will do so as long as I feel a bit of a rush whenever the brown cardboard Lenswork package shows up in the mail box.

BTW, I was especially happy about Richard A. Johnson's portfolio, because I grew up within a few miles of the area he lives and photographs in and was delighted to once again see that you don't have to get to the iconic sites to do some very fine work.

[Greg Lockrey]

Simple, I don't accept digital as a basis for fine art. My opinion. So, I choose not to support it, whenever possible.

Frankly, it sounds pretty shallow to me to decide that someone else's opinion isn't valuable, simply because it is different from yours.

Not to stir the pot, I don't want to ruin my reputation as a guy who gets along, but I can say the same for film. If it's not done with a brush then it isn't really art but just merely a craft.:rolleyes:

[JW Dewdney]

Everyone can have their say... that's the beauty of the forum, right? Other people can read responses and decide for themselves.

IMO - if it's not done with a brilliant mind -it's just craft. Regardless of medium... brushes, pixels and silver halide notwithstanding. Artists have always used whatever (even NEW) tools were available to them at the time. Granted - it's my opinion - but to dismiss digital (I don't work with the digi stuff, btw) would be to dismiss people like Atget and LeGray as artists, since they were working in a 'new' medium, which, at the time was definitely NOT considered the province of art.

[Ted Harris]

Simple, I don't accept digital as a basis for fine art.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but in this case I am scratching my head. How on earth can you tell if a well executed matted and framed image hanging on a gallery or museum wall began as film or digital capture? I just don't belive you can unless the artist tells you. If there is no label I challenge you to tell the difference. Further, if a work of art moves you will the initial emotion disappear once you learn how it was produced?

[JW Dewdney]

There's a name for that, Ted... but you won't hear it coming from me... though you may see my lips silently utter it from time to time...

[Brian K]

I think the true artist cares very little about how they got the look they wanted and only care about the end result. All the rest is just politics. A lot of Jackson Pollocks work never had a brush stroke, does that not make them paintings?

The problem that I have had with digital is that so many of the people doing it produced poor photography, however now many competent photographers are working digitally so there are some excellent images out there being produced digitally.

[Greg Lockrey]

A lot of Jackson Pollocks work never had a brush stroke, does that not make them paintings?

Yes, but most of them did before he became "commercial".:)

BTW Jackson Pollock has been a favorite of mine since I was 8 years old. I like his philosiphy about art. It doesn't need to mean anything but just nice to look at.

[Eric Brody]

Lenswork has been a beacon of excellence in the world of photographic journalism since its creation. I believe we all owe Brooks a great debt. He has published many wonderful portfolios that we would not otherwise see, he has promoted the careers of many deserving artists. He and Maureen do a great job.

I knew Brooks when he lived in the Portland area, prior to his move to Anacortes. The group in which he & I participated, Portland Photographers Workshops, now thrives as the Portland Photographers Forum. He has always been open to new ideas, probably enjoys being a bit controversial, but at heart is a photographer, who appreciates fine work.

Were it easy to do a magazine of Lenswork's quality over time, Brooks would have competitors. I see no other magazine out there that showcases portfolios, often of previously unknown photographers, has intelligent discussions, and continues to encourage great work, regardless of format of imaging source. It avoids equipment discussions, "boys with toys," that have so often permeated photographic discussions.

I do not always agree with him, and after 70 or so issues, he's bound to occasionally produce one that is not up to his usual standard, but I am happy when Lenswork arrives. I usually stop my other activities until I can read Brooks' article and Bill Jay's piece. I do not do that with any other piece of mail.

Eric

[David Luttmann]

Simple, I don't accept digital as a basis for fine art. My opinion. So, I choose not to support it, whenever possible.

Frankly, it sounds pretty shallow to me to decide that someone else's opinion isn't valuable, simply because it is different from yours.

I'm not saying the opinion doesn't matter because it's different. I'm just just saying that I look at the image and the message it conveys as what the photographer intended. My opinion is that looking at capture method, type of lens, camera, film, etc has little to do with it. In fact, in lenswork, you cannot tell the method of capture due to image size and print constraints. Therefore, whether the image was captured on film, digital, medium format, large format or 35mm really has little bearing.

I would say that someone who makes the basis for appreciating art dependant upon whether the capture was film or digital is actually looking for LESS in the photograph than me.

But that's just my opinion.

[Jim Galli]

Time to hit the "unsubscribe from this post" button.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The original topic was about a podcast made by Jensen about the "coffee shop vs photography gallery" situation. I n it Jensen once more spouses the idea that photography should be cheap so that it can be accesible to everybody. The reasoning in his podcast has many flaws and IMO is a bit hypocritical. While he spouses cheap "art" photography, he sells a very expensive magazine.

As to the quality, Lenswork is one of the best printed magazines out there and as it has been stated before it has content for everybody. I think it is a good magazine, but some people are starting to get tired of the editorial messages.

PS, lets not make this another traditional vs digital thread....

[paulr]

You are welcome to your opinion. It is obvious I look for something more in an image than you do.

Something more? Like conformity to a certain dogma?

[paulr]

II would say that someone who makes the basis for appreciating art dependant upon whether the capture was film or digital is actually looking for LESS in the photograph than me.

you sound like one of those whack-o types from a hundred years ago who said that photographs could be art! everyone knows that if it wasn't made with a paintbrush or a hammer and chisel, it doesn't belong in a museum. right?
;)

[paulr]

While he spouses cheap "art" photography, he sells a very expensive magazine.

I don't tend to agree his position on pricing photography (though I like some of his points). But I don't see publishing an expensive magazine as hypocrisy. A magazine like that is simply expensive to print. I doubt he makes much money on it.

I suspect he believes photographs should be priced more like his magazine ... printed in large numbers, and sold for close to the cost of production. Quite the opposite of what's customary in the art world.

[John Voss]

At risk of rehashing what's already been debated on apug and here as well I guess, I wondered after hearing the podcast just what the threshold price of a photograph might be. After all, Starbucks coffee can get pretty expensive for what it is, but apparently not so much so that people choose not to buy it. And the rising price of gasoline doesn't seem to be cutting automobile use in a significant way. So, is there a price point that would make someone much more likely to buy a photograph he liked rather than walk out of a gallery without buying anything?

(It's not my intention to rehash all the pros and cons of whether or not a photograph SHOULD cost more or less, but rather what price range would make purchase more likely than not.)

[Turner Reich]

Kind of sad to think someone looks at the capture method to decide if a beautiful image is worthy of their attention.

It's not sad, it's glad! Digital images are not photography, they are graphic art. They start out as electronic captures and through the path of photoshop in the computer and out the printer there is no photography there at all. It's a cheap knock off of paint and drawing. Print one, print one million it's graphic arts automated mechanical printing. They resemble copy machine output and a copy machine output is not a photograph.

tr

[tim atherton]

bugger - could you stop doing that - I just spurted coffee all over my monitor - damned funny!

[tim atherton]

It's not sad, it's glad! Digital images are not photography, they are graphic art. They start out as electronic captures and through the path of photoshop in the computer and out the printer there is no photography there at all. It's a cheap knock off of paint and drawing. Print one, print one million it's graphic arts automated mechanical printing. They resemble copy machine output and a copy machine output is not a photograph.

tr

BTW I have an old article somewhere from the early days of photography - about which it says almost exactly the same

[Greg Lockrey]

And Michealangelo was a ceiling painter in his day.;)

[Turner Reich]

Michaelangelo was a terrific ceiling painter, I wish he was alive today and I could make an end to it!


BTW I have an old article somewhere from the early days of photography - about which it says almost exactly the same

It get really serious when coffee is spilt. It's more precious than gasoline in my opinion. I don't really disparage digital that much, but it does cut into the press on analog stuff and even I can do some awesome stuff with photoshop but then I can do some awesome stuff with paint and pencils too. In the end we will all be digiographers or whatever it's called.

[JW Dewdney]

Digital images are not photography, they are graphic art.

Most photography is graphic art. Look at brett weston, for example. caponigro... many of the greats revered in the medium are essentially graphic art (graphic design). It's about composition and chiaroscuro. Is this the way that you meant it?

[Photojeep]

It's not sad, it's glad! Digital images are not photography, they are graphic art. They start out as electronic captures and through the path of photoshop in the computer and out the printer there is no photography there at all. It's a cheap knock off of paint and drawing. Print one, print one million it's graphic arts automated mechanical printing. They resemble copy machine output and a copy machine output is not a photograph.

tr

Mr. Reich, PHOTOGRAPHY actually means "writing/drawing with light".

These photons of light are recorded onto a light sensitive object. Sir, your comments are about methods of manipulation and output, not whether something is a photograph. A photograph is simply the physically printed manifestation of the captured image, however that capture was accomplished.

You seem to be confusing the printed piece with the method of capture. I agree that many digital prints are poorly made and look as though they came from a copier, but I would challenge you to say that all darkroom prints are well made. And whether one can print one or a million is totally irrelevant. A person with fine chemical darkroom skills can produce hundreds or even thousands of copies of a single negative. Are these "copies" denied their photographic nature simply because of their quantity?

Digital photography is nothing more or less than the latest step in the evolutionary process of capturing light onto a light sensitive material. Denying its pedigree simply because of their method of capture is absurd.

A person who says they don't like the way a print looks is stating an opinion but denying that they are photographs that person is speaking absurdities.

Respectfully,
Randy Becker

[Turner Reich]

A photograph may be graphic but a photograph is not graphic art. All digital is copy machine art similar to the output of a copy machine. They are not photographs. No matter how fine the paper they are cheap computer printer output.

Even a print judged to be bad is still a photograph if it was taken with a camera and film and printed on photo paper in the darkroom. It's not absurd to make a distinction between photography and digital printer output.

Scanning a negative, processing it in photoshop and printing it on an inkjet printer does not produce a photograph. It is an machine computer made image. I don't believe what Kodak is trying to say because if it is true then over a hundred years of photography by Kodak is null, a lie and not photography so the distinction between photography and the digital stuff is that a photograph is from a negative and made in a darkroom and the digital stuff is made in a digital capture device, created in photoshop and printed on a machine printer like a common letter.

[Brian Ellis]

It's not absurd to make a distinction between photography and digital printer output.

Yes it is.

[Marko]

Scanning a negative, processing it in photoshop and printing it on an inkjet printer does not produce a photograph. It is an machine computer made image. I don't believe what Kodak is trying to say because if it is true then over a hundred years of photography by Kodak is null, a lie and not photography so the distinction between photography and the digital stuff is that a photograph is from a negative and made in a darkroom and the digital stuff is made in a digital capture device, created in photoshop and printed on a machine printer like a common letter.

So, following this logic, all you just said is pure nonsense because it is typed up on a computer instead of being properly hand-crafted on a high quality parchment using a genuine goose quill. All of it under the light of a natural oil lamp instead of the cheap electron imitation...

And to top it off, it is also being transmitted via many more computers and finally displayed on yet another one of them on each end. Whatever happened to pigeons?

:rolleyes:

[Duane Polcou]

I f**king love Lenswork. Multiple inks printing. Perfect bound. Cool size to carry in a pocket. You can read it in one sitting. Some portfolios are great, others I just don't get. Interviews. Rock on.

[JW Dewdney]

Scanning a negative, processing it in photoshop and printing it on an inkjet printer does not produce a photograph. It is an machine computer made image.

What about an 'ADA' process à la Burkholder - like shooting film, scanning - then outputting film again to print on azo, or what-have-you? I would assume you consider this a 'corrupt' technique and also, somehow, devoid of soul? if you do, just say so - I'll respect your answer. I'm not here to try to change attitudes... just to understand others' attitudes.

[Turner Reich]

http://www.tucherphoto.com/filmvdigital.htm

By the way what happened to AZO paper? Burkholder's work is very nice and "full of soul", depending on what that means, but true photographs, no, art yes, prints yes, computer prints yes and very nice graphic art prints. I am not bothered with how other people view the difference, I see a big difference and with Lenswork including largely reproductions of digital art then I am less than interested. I can pick up about any magazine and see digital art. Just because Lenswork does it in non color, small and compact with artist statements doesn't make it photography.

tr

[Greg Lockrey]

Digital graphic art isn't necessarily done with a camera either. There is all kinds of computer generated art that is closer to drawing and painting. How would you reclassify this type of graphic art? Those digital graphics as you like to call it done with a camera could still be called photography altough the media isn't silver. The process of taking the picture is fundamentaly the same, just the method to get it on paper is different.

[Brian K]

This has deteriorated to the old D v. A argument. At this point I think the whole argument is just silly. Personally I don't care if you get an image by pissing on a wire, all I care about is the image. Give me a great digital image over a poor analog one anyday and vice versa.

I think the people who are so strident about one technology over the other have some other dog in the fight beyond the production of work of merit. It may be insecurity about their own work, or the future of their materials, an insecurity that what they're doing is using untried or new technologies that may have some serious downside that may not reveal itself for a whlle to come or they feel that the automation of the new technology means that they are "cheating" when it comes to photography? Who knows, I can't understand the argument anymore, it's really moot. Digital is here and it's not going away. I would think that someone who's only concern is the production of the best photographs possible would embrace the best aspects of both technologies.

[Greg Lockrey]

Exactly. It wasn't that long ago, in my lifetime to be sure, that photography wasn't to be considered as art since it was a "mechanical" process and the images could be massed produced. The excuse was that it wasn't "acrchival" enough. Now I find it ironic that the "photography in the purist form" types are as bigoted as the "brush pushers" were ever were. Even though that the archivability of digital is proven to be better than all of the other mediums ever hoped to be.
I still recall when news papers wouldn't use anything smaller than 4x5" because the 35mm didn't have enough "resolution". Yeah, I need a 4x5 to make a 3x4" 20 dot print for a news paper.
35mm were only good up to 8x10", 4x5 were good to 16x20". Now today everyone claims a drum scan of a 35mm can get to 40x60"....on and on. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.:)

[Gordon Moat]

Graphic design was also a purely mechanical process at one time, and not very long ago. Done well, it still takes lots of skill. Done poorly, both graphic design and photography can be sh*t. We have been over this numerous times, but the effort or toil of getting to an end result is never a guarantee of a compelling result.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[roteague]

I would think that someone who's only concern is the production of the best photographs possible would embrace the best aspects of both technologies.

Then your assumption would be incorrect. I shoot film, exclusively, simply because I think it produces the best images. IMO.

[Jim collum]

http://www.tucherphoto.com/filmvdigital.htm

Just because Lenswork does it in non color, small and compact with artist statements doesn't make it photography.

tr

you forgot to add " for me" at the end. for 99.99% of the rest of the photographic (and non-photographic) world, it is, in fact, photography. There is a very small minority of people who insist that an image created by a digital camera is not a photograph (there are also still people who insist that the world is flat.. and that's fine as well).

[Marko]

I would think that someone who's only concern is the production of the best photographs possible would embrace the best aspects of both technologies.


Then your assumption would be incorrect. I shoot film, exclusively, simply because I think it produces the best images. IMO.

Robert, wasn't that you who told me that Brian forgot more about photography than both of us combined ever knew?

I agreed with that statement then and I still do. I wonder what made you change your mind now?

;)

[roteague]

Robert, wasn't that you who told me that Brian forgot more about photography than both of us combined ever knew?

I agreed with that statement then and I still do. I wonder what made you change your mind now?

;)

I haven't changed my mind. I see no reason to embrace a technology that doesn't produce pleasing images, IMO. My respect for Brian, doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything he says. That is why each of us has a different opinion.

[Brian K]

Then your assumption would be incorrect. I shoot film, exclusively, simply because I think it produces the best images. IMO.

Robert, maybe I should have made my point more specific with the addition of the phrase that a photographer would choose which aspects of each technology are best applied to their work. In the case of some people an analog only approach works best and for some maybe only a digital approach would work best. I'm curious as you shoot color do you have them printed digitally or traditionally?

[roteague]

Robert, maybe I should have made my point more specific with the addition of the phrase that a photographer would choose which aspects of each technology are best applied to their work. In the case of some people an anlog only approach works best and for some maybe only a digital approach would work best. I'm curious as you shoot color do you have them printed digitally or traditionally?

Hi Brian, I understand the point you were making now. Thanks for clarifying it.

I mostly print via a digital printer, like most people do. Mostly, using West Coast Imaging's Chromia printer on Fuji Crystal Archive. Bob Carnie has done a couple of prints on Ilfochrome using his Lambda, that was very impressive, and I hope to do again.

As I have said on numerous occasions, digital capture and digital printing are not the same technology. FWIW, I am an Electrical Engineer by education.

I don't like the look and feel of digitally captured images, which is why I don't use it. However, I have found digital printing to be able to deliver the range of colors that I require. The biggest reason I don't do traditional from start to finish however, is that I'm a photographer, not a printer. I have printed both B&W and Cibachrome (since the mid 70s) in the past, and have found that I would rather spend my time photographing, than printing.

[paulr]

They are not photographs. No matter how fine the paper ...

Turner, it's fine to have your own personal definitions, but you should be aware that the world disagrees with you. I have yet to see a major museum photography department classify digital photographs as anything but photographs. They were embraced from the get-go (well over a decade ago) by curators, critics, and art historians as just another category of photographic media.

Your arguments sound just like the old ones we make fun of now, put forth by the painters who said photography couldn't be art, or by the classicists who said modernism couldn't be art, or by the musicians who said beebop couldn't be jazz, or by the photographers who said color photography couldn't be serious photography.

I'd also humbly suggest that if you want to troll or hijack a thread, you should consider doing it with some more original bait. We've had this pointless discussion a hundred times before.

[Marko]

I haven't changed my mind. I see no reason to embrace a technology that doesn't produce pleasing images, IMO. My respect for Brian, doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything he says. That is why each of us has a different opinion.

I don't know, characterizing one's stated opinion as incorrect and an assumption does not strike me as overly respectful.

Now, a real example of an assumption, and an obviously incorrect one, is that everybody has the same notion of pleasing as you do.

To make myself clear, what makes it an assumption is NOT that you see see film as pleasing and digital as not - that would be an opinion which I would respect even if I didn't agree with it - but that you state it as a fact of the matter and thus dismiss everybody else's opinion as incorrect.

[roteague]

but that you state it as a fact of the matter and thus dismiss everybody else's opinion as incorrect.

Then you have missed what I was saying. I keep saying "my opinion".

[Marko]

If you say so...

[Eric James]

;) Aahhh, I'm surprised at ya'll - never mind them daguerreotype mercury vapors, them tin types ain't no good!

[Greg Lockrey]

Seriously though, albumen prints were the best.

[Struan Gray]

I quite like the idea of a paint by numbers set where the patches on the canvas are all squares, and the numbers just pixel values.

In a limited edition of course.

[JW Dewdney]

A good photo is a good photo whether from my old 8x10 or the Canon 30D or the Polaroid 20x24.

HA! Screw the 30D! Minolta ten thousand all the way! BTW - you aren't a furniture designer, are you? I worked on the design for someone's house of that name, once upon a time!

[Maris Rusis]

Turner Reich is absolutely right about photographs being photographs and pictures generated through electronic means, analog or digital, being something else.

The fact that a light sensor is struck by light is irrelevant. All pictures in all media involve that. The commonest light sensor is the human eye and it is the first thing tickled by photons in prompting painters to make paintings. No one (yet) is suggesting that paintings are photographs.

Appearances are no guide. Picture making machines are still in their technological infancy and yet they can pretty well replicate the appearance of images made in virtually any medium. The decisive identifying characteristics of photographs are based not on how they look but on what they are.

I am committed to the use of light sensitive surfaces for making photographs because this is the only way true photographs can be made. Other methods involving photo-realist painting, mezzotint, gravure, offset printing, and analog and digital electronics do make pictures which appear to closely resemble photographs. But they do not invoke the special bond that exists between subject and photograph and do not offer the special relationship that the photograph offers the (perceptive!) viewer.

The true photograph is physically, irrevocally, and materially bound to its subject in the same way as a graphite rubbing, a footprint, or a silicone rubber cast. A physical sample of subject matter travels across space, through a lens, embeds itself in a sensitive surface, and causes a photograph of the subject to form where it hit. Wow!

This physical nature of photography has serious consequences.

The photographic medium is utterly powerless in depicting subject matter that does not exist. I can give myself whole heartedly to what I see in a photograph without being fool enough to claim I understand all that I can see.

The photographic medium requires that the subject and its photograph have to be in each others presence simultaneously and that they have to be directly and physically connected at the same (relativistically adjusted!) moment.

Photography can do nothing about subjects which may have existed in the past. The future is similarly closed to it. Photographs can only be exposed in the implacable present.

No photograph can go into subjects of the imagination, nor into the topography of dreams, nor address hallucinatory visions.

Photography cannot even get to grips with things which full well exist but are momentarily blocked from sight.

The sole source of energy for a photograph is the subject itself: only the subject. The internal chemical potential energy of the photographic materials themselves is sufficient to generate the material substance the photograph is made of. External energy sources are not required. Remember, photography was invented in and works perfectly well in a world without electricity.

Sharply and significantly, none of the above strictures and limitations apply to paintings and other pictures that are fabricated from descriptions, mental, electronic, whatever, rather than physical samples.

It is these boundary conditions of photography, its limitations if you like , that keep me committed to the medium. I will continue to use light changeable materials even if I have to make them myself.

The view that I propose is a minority one but I believe that when the new electronic picture making methods are seen in the cold light of future scholarship their misidentification with photography will be seen as mistaken populism. Or maybe not just populism. There is certainly a bandwagon of retailers hankering to sell magazines, cameras, printers, ink, and paper to a public who would not know photography from a hole in the ground.

Don't forget in years past just about everybody agreed the earth was flat and that the sun orbited in a geocentric universe. Concensus is no guarantee of truth. Dissention is no guarantee of truth either but only live fish, and I suspect Turner Reich is one, swim upstream.

[Terence McDonagh]

Lenswork professed they would stick to film. What seemed like a few months later, they reversed course. I have nothing against digital, and use it myself, but there are already dozens of outlets for it. The last few issues have looked more and more like the digital-only mags, but with better printing. If Lenswork continues to head that way, I'll let my subscription lapse. nothing wrong with the approach, it's just not what I'm looking for as it would be redundant.

[Ben R]

I am committed to the use of light sensitive surfaces for making photographs because this is the only way true photographs can be made. Other methods involving photo-realist painting, mezzotint, gravure, offset printing, and analog and digital electronics do make pictures which appear to closely resemble photographs. But they do not invoke the special bond that exists between subject and photograph and do not offer the special relationship that the photograph offers the (perceptive!) viewer.


What pretentious nonsense! Who made chemical photography into some kind of god?

[Terence McDonagh]

I agree, it's not "some kind of god," but it is the medium I prefer to work in for my personal work. To say there's no difference, as many here seem to be saying, does not ring true with me. While many photographs look identical regardless of the medium of capture, there is a popular subset of photographs that look obviously digitally manipulated (as opposed to wet-darkroom manipulated), which I find myself not enjoying. The number of these images in Lenswork has been creeping up and up. There are plenty of other places to view such work, so if Lenswork continues this trend I'll be going elsewhere with my discretionary spending. If I wanted to sit infront of a computer as a hobby I'd forgo the hassle of LF.

[Terry Hull]

Great magazine. I look forward to each issue, not only for the photo essays, but for the editorial comment, which adds something no other magazine seems able to do, put concepts, ideas, etc into words.

[kmgibbs]

I like lenswork. I don't like every photo in it, but overall I'm very happy with the magazines' content and quality.

It seems there are a few here who have elevated mechanics above content. That's fine if it's what an individual wants to focus on. Me, I don't care if the image was scraped into a clay tablet with the point of a stick, if the image is good and conveys the intended message.

Content, not method. Content, not method.

I will use whatever method of image creation I deem necessary to make the image I intend.

Kent

[Terence McDonagh]

Kent, I disagree. If I was looking for a general art magazine, maybe. But as I said, at one point Lenswork thought it important enough to say they were sticking to wet-darkroom photography and then caved. They are moving away from the niche they held and moving into a more mainstream market already served by many other magazines. That's their perogative. Mine is to find another magazine that continues to serve my interests.

[Marko]

I quite like the idea of a paint by numbers set where the patches on the canvas are all squares, and the numbers just pixel values.

In a limited edition of course.

Hey, that's what I do every day in my business, it's called "a web page" ... :)

[PViapiano]

In which issue did LensWork say it was sticking to wet-darkroom photography? I want to look it up and read that editorial...

And someone above a few pages ago, said that LensWork was one of the most expensive mags out there...at $9.95 it's significantly less expensive than the $13.99 Silvershotz and $12.99 PDN I bought yesterday. Aperture and Blind Spot are close to $15 these days, too...

[Rakesh Malik]

Then you have missed what I was saying. I keep saying "my opinion".

Bogus.

Here, http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=241339&postcount=18 you said,


It is obvious I look for something more in an image than you do.

[Eric James]

Quote provided by Maris Rusis:

Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,.."

Ironic:)

[paulr]

You guys who argue against the current definitions of photography are missing a larger principle: definitions are a matter of broad usage and consensus, not opinion.

Your personal definition might be useful to you and a small group of likeminded friends, but it's foolish to argue it as if you're privy to some kind of holy grail ... especially when the rest of the world, including the critical, curatorial, and art-historical establisments, voted decisively against you a long time ago.

You might not like it, but at this point, all you gain by maintaining your own definitions is difficulty communicating with the rest of the world. Unless you think trolling is communicating.

[Marko]

Quote provided by Maris Rusis:

Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,.."

Ironic:)

Chemical rays of light? LOL, you sure ironic is the right description?

[Eric James]

No, I'm not sure what was meant by chemical, maybe Herschel was an anti-digital visionary.

[Rakesh Malik]

No, I'm not sure what was meant by chemical, maybe Herschel was an anti-digital visionary.


Maybe he was referring to the particle nature of light? :D

[Gordon Moat]

Herschel was around not long after the idea of earth, fire, water, and ether were common, but long before nuclear processes were understood.

[Marko]

But we're not talking about Herschel here... :D

[paulr]

A 150 year old definition of a technical term is of use only to historians. Language, technologies, and especially language about technologie, all evolve.

Definition of "car": a two-wheeled Celtic war chariot. (1301)
Definition of "computer": a person who performs mathematical calculations. (1646)

If you want to know what "photography" means, look at contemporary usage, particularly by authorities in the field. If you favor conservative interpretations, look at conservative intitutions (the Met, SF Moma, etc.).

[kmgibbs]

Kent, I disagree. If I was looking for a general art magazine, maybe. But as I said, at one point Lenswork thought it important enough to say they were sticking to wet-darkroom photography and then caved. They are moving away from the niche they held and moving into a more mainstream market already served by many other magazines. That's their perogative. Mine is to find another magazine that continues to serve my interests.

If you find any that aren't doing any digital, let me know. I would be genuinely interested in knowing who they are. "Black and White Magazine", "Black and White Photography" and most others I know of, are accepting digital capture.

Kent

[Terence McDonagh]

Emulsion is a new start-up that's all wet-darkroom stuff. Pretty good for a first effort.

[kmgibbs]

Emulsion is a new start-up that's all wet-darkroom stuff. Pretty good for a first effort.


I'm always leery of start-ups. I have been burned in the past. Thanks for the info though.

Kent

[Terence McDonagh]

The issues have been slow in coming, I will admit, but I figure if I don't support such an effort, I can't really complain about there not being any such magazines (I take the same approach with voting). And what is life without a good complaint now and again?

[John Voss]

Lenswork professed they would stick to film. What seemed like a few months later, they reversed course.


That wasn't "LensWork". It was "Black and White Magazine", and they did just that...asserted a 'traditional only' statement, and then retracted it a few months later. Since the 'graphs in that magazine are accepted only on CD, it hardly matters by what medium they were made. I do notice a marked range in the quality of their portfolio reproductions from fairly good to just a cut above poor.

But, again, "LensWork" has NEVER made such a statement!

[Terence McDonagh]

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I was recently reading one of my old Lensworks from before I started subscribing. It was an article describing how to submit to them, down to how to package the photos, and their pet peeves about the packaging.

[Christopher Perez]

Lenswork is my favorite photo-image magazine. The ideas and perspectives put forth can be challenging, but that's what I like about it. Every issue really gets me thinking about how I "see" the world and the images I make.

I can honestly say that I'm much more pleased with my work from the past three years than I am with the prior four decades. I attribute some of this to the influence of Lenswork (subscribed) and some to colleagues, mentors, and friends.

[D. Bryant]

Emulsion is a new start-up that's all wet-darkroom stuff. Pretty good for a first effort.
Emulsion has accepted and published work that has a digital component (prints made from inkjet digital negatives) in the workflow. They also accept submissions on CD.


Don Bryant

[Brian Ellis]

"But as I said, at one point Lenswork thought it important enough to say they were sticking to wet-darkroom photography and then caved."

You would have a little more credibility if you stopped repeating this incorrect statement. As someone else has already pointed out to you, the magazine that made this statement and then "caved" as you put it wasn't LensWork, it was B&W magazine.

"While many photographs look identical regardless of the medium of capture, there is a popular subset of photographs that look obviously digitally manipulated (as opposed to wet-darkroom manipulated), which I find myself not enjoying. The number of these images in Lenswork has been creeping up and up. There are plenty of other places to view such work, so if Lenswork continues this trend I'll be going elsewhere with my discretionary spending."

So you can look at the photographs in LensWork and tell which were originally printed in a darkroom and which were printed digitally, without first peeking at the information at the end of the bios that accompany the portfolios?

[Greg Lockrey]

Some guys just have incredibly keen eyes, Brian.;)

[Eric James]

"...So you can look at the photographs in LensWork and tell which were originally printed in a darkroom and which were printed digitally, without first peeking at the information at the end of the bios...

Thanks for this Brian - I think I'll try my eye at your game!

When I was a kid I used to play a similar game with National Geographic: Kodachrome or Ektachrome? I was right ~80% of the time back then. Not bad for a kid with a Kodak Instamatic.

[Terence McDonagh]

I was wrong. I apologize.

But I never said I could tell ALL digital from film images. I said it could be done with a small (but growing) subset. Are you really saying you can NEVER tell when a photo has been digitally manipulated?

[Marko]

I was wrong. I apologize.

But I never said I could tell ALL digital from film images. I said it could be done with a small (but growing) subset. Are you really saying you can NEVER tell when a photo has been digitally manipulated?

If you can tell an image has been manipulated at all, then it's been badly manipulated. If you can tell the type of manipulation, then it's been manipulated incompetently.

Provided you don't already know how the image was created in the first place, of course.

Isn't that the main reason the digifobes insist on magazines declaring how their images have been created, after all?

[PViapiano]

If you can tell an image has been manipulated at all, then it's been badly manipulated. If you can tell the type of manipulation, then it's been manipulated incompetently.

That's it, right there...

And there have been some photos in LW recently that have too much manipulation for my taste, but whether they're digi or film is irrelevant. It's the manipulation that takes it over the top, the blur, the heavy black diffusion, etc...not to say that the photographer's intention is wrong...it's all just an opinion. When a whole portfolio looks like it was processed with the same action and it has a heavy hand, hmmm, I don't know...It's the same kind of thing film shooters would say about someone who didn't have his burning/dodging skills together and it was obvious in the prints...

I'm still formulating my thoughts on all this. This would make a great side-bar discussion...

[Brian Ellis]

I was wrong. I apologize.

But I never said I could tell ALL digital from film images. I said it could be done with a small (but growing) subset. Are you really saying you can NEVER tell when a photo has been digitally manipulated?

Of course. But we were talking about images in LensWork. You said " . . . there is a popular subset of photographs that look obviously digitally manipulated (as opposed to wet-darkroom manipulated), which I find myself not enjoying. The number of these images in Lenswork has been creeping up and up." That pretty clearly isn't talking about any image anywhere. It says you're seeing more and more of these digitally manipulated images in LensWork. So it was LensWork images that I asked you about.

I realize that this subject has been beaten to death so I probably should let you off the hook on which you've hung yourself and just drop it. But I'm always amused at the extent to which digiphobes will twist all logic and common sense in an effort to justify their insistence that only traditional darkroom prints are "real" photographs.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses to work in a darkroom. Great photographs obviously have been and hopefully will continue to be made that way. It's when photographers who work that way insist that theirs is the only way of making "real" photographs that I get irritated.

[tim atherton]

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses to work in a darkroom. Great photographs obviously have been and hopefully will continue to be made that way. It's when photographers who work that way insist that theirs is the only way of making "real" photographs that I get irritated.

along with the "and off course you can always tell the digital photographs" that is, all the "bad" ones. Which is simply bollix

[tim atherton]

BTW, I remember one person (don't think it was here, may have been APUG or pee.net) going on and on about the terrible and obvious digital manipulation in a portfolio in Lenswork - the horribly photo-shopped skies, the obviously bad photoshop masking etc etc all horror of horrors.

Turned out it was all analogue manipulation, done in the darkroom, with just the final prints scanned for publication..

[David R Munson]

I for one think Lenswork is one of the best photo magazines being published today. I buy and enjoy every issue, even when the opinions or photographs aren't quite to my taste. It's all quite well done.

[Daniel Grenier]

QUOTE .... we try to make the focus of LensWork the images, not the gear..... Brooks Jensen Editor, LensWork Publishing.

To which I suggested to Brooks he remove all references to hardware (leaving the digital-analog debate out of Lenswork entirely... wouldn't that be refreshing!) but that has yet to happen.

I use nothing but analog in my personal work & nothing but digital in my day job but I can certainly appreciate a "good eye" whether digital or analog. I suggest the digital vs analog "issue" should only be of concern when it comes time to spend your hard earned cash and actually *buy* someone's work!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I suggest the digital vs analog "issue" should only be of concern when it comes time to spend your hard earned cash and actually *buy* someone's work!

LOL...this is the best suggestion I have read in this thread!

[bsimison]

"I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop."

Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs by Ansel Adams, p.59

[John Voss]

The most obviously manipulated photographs I know of by a well known photographer are those of Clyde Butcher who doesn't try very hard to conceal the dodging and burning interventions he uses, and I believe his are all 'wet' prints. And yet, the most subtle, impossible to detect manipulations I've ever seen are done with PS, and I only know this because I've seen them being done....and they are astonishingly significant while looking utterly natural. If I could do in the darkroom what I'm referring to, I'd be filling big bucks workshops daily. Of course the number of people in the world who actually give a rat's rump anymore would probably only fill up a weeks worth of workshops... :D

Crass and careless work is anathema by whatever means made.

[David Luttmann]

A 150 year old definition of a technical term is of use only to historians. Language, technologies, and especially language about technologie, all evolve.

Definition of "car": a two-wheeled Celtic war chariot. (1301)
Definition of "computer": a person who performs mathematical calculations. (1646)

If you want to know what "photography" means, look at contemporary usage, particularly by authorities in the field. If you favor conservative interpretations, look at conservative intitutions (the Met, SF Moma, etc.).

Darn,

Now not only do I not do photography when I'm using a DSLR, now my Mazda is no longer a car. I wonder what I'm typing on right now as it most certainly can't be called a computer.

[John Kasaian]

I've always thought the pictures in Lenswork were very nice. Like, they're supposed to be, right?

[Oren Grad]

A follow-up by Colin Jago, whose original post Tim excerpted to start this thread:

http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=753

[tim atherton]

A follow-up by Colin Jago, whose original post Tim excerpted to start this thread:

http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=753

pretty much nailed it... :eek:

[PViapiano]

I disagree with Colin...first of all, the abstracts are good, they're well done. Work like this may not be everyone's cup of tea, but they're still valid. LensWork has featured abstract and conceptual photography in the past, and they're usually very good portfolios. Both Ray McSavaney and John Sexton have featured abstract images in their portfolios alongside their better known landscapes/cityscapes.

Second, LensWork has been featuring 4 portfolios lately rather than the usual 3. This gives them an extra slot. I think it's perfectly valid for Brooks to fill that slot. He rarely features his images. Last time I can remember was an editorial story about his October Seas portfolio.

Brooks doesn't come on like he's preaching from a high horse, he more of an everyman figure who happens to be the publisher. I've learned from and/or agreed with his editorials more often than not and have even been inspired by his words. The editorial is at least as important to me as the portfolios are.

Colin said that in the last few years there were only 2 portfolios that interested him? Earlier, I mentioned a whole list that were in the last 6 or 7 issues alone...I don't know what he's looking for.

[tim atherton]

it does seem pretty much stuck in a sort of late Mordernist timewarp these days though. There's an awful lot in it over the last couple of years that has been much of a muchness. Wasn't always so

Brooks doesn't come on like he's preaching from a high horse, he more of an everyman figure who happens to be the publisher.

you ever listen to the Podcasts...? :)

[Marco Annaratone]

I've been a subscriber for only four years, so I am certainly not an old timer. I still like the magazine very much although the last few issues (and I really mean the last two or three) have been indeed less interesting than those of the recent past.

I also signed up for the podcasts and listened to them for a few months but then I stopped because I found them a bit boring: there was too much "motherhood and apple pie" in them. I am not looking for controversy for the sake of it, but I do need some jolt to my ferociously vanishing neurons, and the podcasts weren't delivering that.

I still find it really impressive that someone have the guts to do this truly outstanding quality printing _for_a_magazine_. Sometime we give for granted things that are really not.

But the content of Lenswork needs to return to the levels of a few issues back and the podcasts... well, the podcasts ... hmmmmm ... :-(

Cheers!

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't care for all the portfolios in _Lenswork_, and I rarely listen to any of the podcasts or look at any of the "extended" stuff, but there are enough portfolios there to hold my interest, and the production quality of the magazine is outstanding, and that's why I susbscribe.

I don't mind if Brooks features his own work occasionally, maybe once every couple of years. It's interesting to see what kind of work the editor of a photography publication does once in a while. At least Brooks and Steve Simmons and J. Michael Sullivan have some interesting work to show, which is more than can be said of some of the magazine publishers who post on the LF Forum.

[Michael Gordon]

I think what this issue really boils down to is that everyone with a blog thinks that their opinion is valid and worth reading. Opinions are like a**holes....

If you don't like LensWork, my advice is to quit subscribing/looking at it. Does the rest of the world really need to know about it?

[Ben Crane]

Brooks has mentioned in one of podcasts that recently he has been seeing (and publishing) more portfolios that were done in a relatively short period of time. This is largely because digitial capture and printing allow it. Thus digital photographers are tending to take a lot of images and select the best ones rather than spending a lot of effort up front making a small number of images as large format photographers tend to do. I think he also wants to accept portfolios that include a large number of images so he can market the extra images as part of his 'lenswork extended' CD, which tends to eliminate portfolios with only a small number of good images from publication.

Ansel Adams used to say that a professional photographer, working hard, could produce about 1 good new photograph a month. Perhaps with digital photography some would argue that it is possible to produce 10, or even 100 good photographs a month - I don't believe this to be the case. Thus I think the quality has suffered recently, not because digital images are inherently worse quality, but because many (but certainly not all) digital photographers seem to be using the technology primarily to increase the speed and quantity of their images.

That said I still think Lenswork is one of the best publications out there.

[Kirk Gittings]

he has been seeing (and publishing) more portfolios that were done in a relatively short period of time. This is largely because digitial capture and printing allow it.

I have no idea where you get this from. The best digital photographers that I know are take just as much time and care producing images from DC as they did with film and far more time preparing files for printing than they ever did producing that first good print traditionally. Reproducibility of prints is faster as long as you are using the same paper and ink, but that is all.

Good work takes time digitally just as it did traditionally. There are no shortcuts or easy fixes now or then. The belief that it is easier has enticed hoards of people into the field, but the really good work is still a very small percentage of the whole and produced by fine craftsman with vision.

[sanking]

it does seem pretty much stuck in a sort of late Mordernist timewarp these days though. There's an awful lot in it over the last couple of years that has been much of a muchness. Wasn't always so

Brooks doesn't come on like he's preaching from a high horse, he more of an everyman figure who happens to be the publisher.

you ever listen to the Podcasts...? :)

I like Modernist photography, both early and late, for the visual experience. I also like conceptual and surrealist work in photography, for this kind of work makes us relate the image to other art forms and ideas. And abstract work in painting, with colors, can be quite captivating.

But in all honesty, the abstract portfolio of of Brooks Jensen in Lens Work left me with nothing to hang my hat on. It was certainly well done, in a technical sense, but it did not in any way communicate to me understanding on any level. I looked at each image carefully in an effort to understand why the photograher would have taken the time to make that work, but I just could not find a good reason.

Sandy King

[Eric James]

I suppose it matter what format we are taking about. For LF, I agree with Kirk: at least for my narrow use of large format, digital capture would not speed things up. I think it would take me longer to hike to location if I had to bring a computer and fragile back, and I would certainly slooooooow waaaay down when I had the expensive back out of the pack. dSLR capture has changed my small format shooting habits for sure - I probably get more keepers than with 35mm but I also end up with whole 4GB cards full of crap.

[Ben Crane]

I have no idea where you get this from. The best digital photographers that I know are take just as much time and care producing images from DC as they did with film and far more time preparing files for printing than they ever did producing that first good print traditionally. Reproducibility of prints is faster as long as you are using the same paper and ink, but that is all.

As I mentioned in my post, I got it from Brook's podcast. He claims that thanks to modern technology he now sees good portfolios that were made from images taken over a span of less than a week:

http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0279%20-%20The%20Time%20Frame%20of%20a%20Project.mp3

But Kirk I agree with you that good work takes time digitally just as it did traditionally and the really good work is still a very small percentage of the whole and produced by fine craftsman with vision. Not everyone shares our philosophy unfortunately.

[tim atherton]

I think what this issue really boils down to is that everyone with a blog thinks that their opinion is valid and worth reading. Opinions are like a**holes....

If you don't like LensWork, my advice is to quit subscribing/looking at it. Does the rest of the world really need to know about it?

and the real difference between that and posting your opinion on a list is... :rolleyes:

Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle...

[Greg Lockrey]

I think what this issue really boils down to is that everyone with a blog thinks that their opinion is valid and worth reading. Opinions are like a**holes....

If you don't like LensWork, my advice is to quit subscribing/looking at it. Does the rest of the world really need to know about it?

Actually Michael, not everyone has an "a**hole". People with a colonostamy don't have one. :eek: :D

[Jim Becia]

I like Modernist photography, both early and late, for the visual experience. I also like conceptual and surrealist work in photography, for this kind of work makes us relate the image to other art forms and ideas. And abstract work in painting, with colors, can be quite captivating.

But in all honesty, the abstract portfolio of of Brooks Jensen in Lens Work left me with nothing to hang my hat on. It was certainly well done, in a technical sense, but it did not in any way communicate to me understanding on any level. I looked at each image carefully in an effort to understand why the photograher would have taken the time to make that work, but I just could not find a good reason.

Sandy King

I found I liked his abstracts. For a long time I thought I didn't "understand" abstract art. I mainly shoot color landscapes so my work is pretty straight forward. For the past 7 years I have been doing the art fair circuit here in the Midwest with some success. During that time I have had the oppurtunity to be next to a very successful abtract painter (he also teaches) from the Chicago area whose name escapes me. Every time I was near this guy I marveled at how well his work sold. He was selling his pieces for $2000 to $10,000 and nearly selling out on a regular basis. At first I was a little miffed as I did not get it. One day I finally got the nerve to ask him what I was supposed to see or feel. He looked at me and said that there was nothing to get. His work was simply about putting color and texture together to produce an interesting painting. To oversimplify he was basically saying there was no message other than good color, texture in ways that were pleasing to people. And he was very effective doing it. I guess when I look a Brook's abstract work, view it the same way. I actually liked the series. I found his work to be good example of the above where it looked pleasing to my eyes. I didn't look for any extra meaning in this instance. Now maybe I'm over simplifying, but sometimes a rock is just a rock. And maybe sometimes it's abstract simply to be astract.http://www.spiritlightphotography.com

[Christopher Perez]

It's interesting to me to read what people use to create their images. However, if the information was not published in LensWork, I wouldn't miss it. Afterall, Brook's basic tenet regarding images over camera gear is looking to hit the mark.

For decades I have worried over equipment, cameras, lenses, resolution, film, developers, print surfaces, work flows, and other minutiae ... only to find and ultimately remember that the only thing that matters is the final image.

It's a freeing realization, actually. :) :)



... I talked with Brooks a few years ago and made the suggestion that he start including the very basic info as to what gear was used. Not shutter speed/f-stops/film& processing/whatnot. Just what the photographer worked with. Before this there was no info on this in the magazine.

Brooks started doing this and from comments by friends they are glad to see it. Not to start the old 'if I had that camera/lens/film I could do it too', but it is nice to see what was used in creating the work we view in the magazine.

[darr]

I like Brook's Wakarimasen series as well. For me it is simply about texture, tonality and movement. Different strokes for different folks. :)

[David Luttmann]

It's interesting to me to read what people use to create their images. However, if the information was not published in LensWork, I wouldn't miss it. Afterall, Brook's basic tenet regarding images over camera gear is looking to hit the mark.

For decades I have worried over equipment, cameras, lenses, resolution, film, developers, print surfaces, work flows, and other minutiae ... only to find and ultimately remember that the only thing that matters is the final image.

It's a freeing realization, actually. :) :)

Carefull,

Some here would roast you for even hinting that the image matters most!

[Marko]

Carefull,

Some here would roast you for even hinting that the image matters most!

Oh, come on, Dave!

Why on Earth would the image matter the most - it's photography we're talking about here! You know, when the essence of the subject gets transferred by chemical rays of light and gets physically imprinted on the surface of the film. It is all that chemical energy that stimulates our brains into forming a vivid representation of that reality that forms the image.

So, since the image cannot be formed without a proper process, the image itself is irrelevant and the process is everything.

Or something like that...

:D

[Michael Graves]

Lenswork is a very high-quality publication with high-quality reproductions of photography that rarely has interest to me. The fact that it doesn't interest me doesn't make it a bad magazine. It's still a very good magazine. Just not one that interests me.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Carefull,

Some here would roast you for even hinting that the image matters most!

To me what matters most is the FUSION of image and technique to make a superb photograph. By themselves each lacking. WHich is something you start to find more and more in Lenswork, one or the other but not both together.

[Mark Sawyer]

A photographic artist who doesn't care for craft is like a composer who doesn't care for musicianship, or a poet who can't be bothered to learn the language well...

That said, craft in any field means different things to those in that field. Some may seek perfection, others seek to be perfectly adequate to the task at hand.

Lenswork is a wonderful publication, one of very few I don't hesitate to renew. If I had a beef, it would be that all images are printed small and in a very warm-toned ink. An unavoidable condition of economics, I know, and probably the most handsome compromise in complying to a forced universal aesthetic...

[cobalt]

What's wrong with Lenswork? Not enough tired pictures of cala lillies? A lack of monuments from the venerable valley? El Capitan not poking its omnipresent head under the tent quite often enough?

Lenswork has the testicular fortitude to break from the tired, done to death, gear-head oriented, Ansel Adams worshipping mental masturbation that drove me from contributing to this site some time ago.

Lenswork is, without question, the best photography magazine on the newsstand today, at least in SE Michigan.

Brooks, please keep doing what you are doing. Talented photographic artists who are not steeped in dogmatic tradition are depending on you...

After a while away, I see things haven't changed much. Pity.

[D. Bryant]

What's wrong with Lenswork? Not enough tired pictures of cala lillies? A lack of monuments from the venerable valley? El Capitan not poking its omnipresent head under the tent quite often enough?

Lenswork has the testicular fortitude to break from the tired, done to death, gear-head oriented, Ansel Adams worshipping mental masturbation that drove me from contributing to this site some time ago.

Lenswork is, without question, the best photography magazine on the newsstand today, at least in SE Michigan.

Brooks, please keep doing what you are doing. Talented photographic artists who are not steeped in dogmatic tradition are depending on you...

After a while away, I see things haven't changed much. Pity.

If given the opportunity, how many of us would turn down an offer to have our work published in Lens Work?

Don Bryant

[tim atherton]

What's wrong with Lenswork? Not enough tired pictures of cala lillies? A lack of monuments from the venerable valley? El Capitan not poking its omnipresent head under the tent quite often enough?

Lenswork has the testicular fortitude to break from the tired, done to death, gear-head oriented, Ansel Adams worshipping mental masturbation that drove me from contributing to this site some time ago.

.

oh - definitely not that - thank god. It's just it now seems to be stuck in late photo-modernism somewhere between 1950 and 1975 instead... it's just a different - perhaps not quite so dogmatic - tradition. But a lot has happened since then

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If given the opportunity, how many of us would turn down an offer to have our work published in Lens Work?

Don Bryant

I for one would. I don't care to be associated with a magazine whose editor thinks photographs should sell for $20.

[Greg Lockrey]

I for one would. I don't care to be associated with a magazine whose editor thinks photographs should sell for $20.

Why not, they're just prints after all? There's a guy who has made 85,000 Ansel Adams prints. Just how valuable can these be?

[cobalt]

I for one would. I don't care to be associated with a magazine whose editor thinks photographs should sell for $20.

Hmmm...interesting. When I create a painting or pen and ink drawing, it is a one of a kind work. That fact, in and of itself, makes it valuable, given a modicum of artistic merit imbued therein, of course. Printmakers (e.g. artists that make lithographs) tend to make very limited editions of their work available. Photography, by its very nature, is more of a graphic/comercial art, i.e. an art related specialization. In other words, in most instances, it is to fine art (for the MOST part) what illustration is to...well...fine art.

Unless you are willing to bring to market something more than a representation of the image itself, why not sell it for 20 bucks? I would more redily shell out 300 bucks for a finely crafted, silver gelatin print from a series of, say 250 editions, than I would for an inkjet print. The limited aspect of the work, as well as its ability to be duplicated by the same means exactly, contribute to its value. The substantial quality and work invested in its creation makes it ( the gelatin print) far more commanding of a substantial price.

There are Salvador Dali posters available all over the industrialized world for less than 30 bucks a pop. A signed, limited edition litho of Persistence of Memory...well, now...that is a horse of a decidedly different color.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Why not, they're just prints after all? There's a guy who has made 85,000 Ansel Adams prints. Just how valuable can these be?

This is exactly the attitude that hurts photography, why dont you ask "well, why not sell a sculpture for $20 is only a piece of rock?" along with the comment that the erudite in this forum posted..."Is not like photography is that difficult anyway" (of course, it shows in his work). It takes years to become technically proficient, and it takes a lifetime to develop a fresh vision as well grow with it. You don't begrudge a painter or a sculptor his experience and his years of work, why do you do it for photography?

Bottom line, who gives a rat's ass what you or I think? but when the editor of a PHOTOGRAPHY magazine spouts this kind of BS a reader might walk into a gallery and say.."hell why should I pay $300? The editor of Lenswork says photography is only worth $20!"....this hurts photographers, the very people from whom the editor of Lenswork makes his living from. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! But dont ask why is Lenswork so expensive....then you get all kinds of rationalizations.


Unless you are willing to bring to market something more than a representation of the image itself, why not sell it for 20 bucks? I would more redily shell out 300 bucks for a finely crafted, silver gelatin print from a series of, say 250 editions, than I would for an inkjet print. The limited aspect of the work, as well as its ability to be duplicated by the same means exactly, contribute to its value. The substantial quality and work invested in its creation makes it ( the gelatin print) far more commanding of a substantial price.

I think you are making my point, and although I agree with you on the worth of an ink jet print vs a traditional print, I think it goes beyond that. If a photographer chose ink jet printing as the best method to produce his work and providing that he has become the best possible printer, then that effort took time, money and many failures. If the resulting print is superb then it should not be punished just because it is an ink jet print. The client is buying the ART, the conjuction of craft and vision...and that is worth more than $20 IMO.

The again, you say a silver print has more value. Not according to the editor of Lenswork, to him all prints...or better said, most prints from most photographers are worth little and the photographer should be happy to live like a kid working at McDonalds.

[tim atherton]

another take on the cheap editions thing (which I don't really agree with)

http://www.personism.com/2007/05/10/art-affordability-access/

http://thebartender.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/jen-beckmans-20x200-and-hot-shot/

[Greg Lockrey]

This is exactly the attitude that hurts photography, why dont you ask "well, why not sell a sculpture for $20 is only a piece of rock?" along with the comment that the erudite in this forum posted..."Is not like photography is that difficult anyway" (of course, it shows in his work). It takes years to become technically proficient, and it takes a lifetime to develop a fresh vision as well grow with it. You don't begrudge a painter or a sculptor his experience and his years of work, why do you do it for photography?

Bottom line, who gives a rat's ass what you or I think? but when the editor of a PHOTOGRAPHY magazine spouts this kind of BS a reader might walk into a gallery and say.."hell why should I pay $300? The editor of Lenswork says photography is only worth $20!"....this hurts photographers, the very people from whom the editor of Lenswork makes his living from. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! But dont ask why is Lenswork so expensive....then you get all kinds of rationalizations.



I think you are making my point, and although I agree with you on the worth of an ink jet print vs a traditional print, I think it goes beyond that. If a photographer chose ink jet printing as the best method to produce his work and providing that he has become the best possible printer, then that effort took time, money and many failures. If the resulting print is superb then it should not be punished just because it is an ink jet print. The client is buying the ART, the conjuction of craft and vision...and that is worth more than $20 IMO.

The again, you say a silver print has more value. Not according to the editor of Lenswork, to him all prints...or better said, most prints from most photographers are worth little and the photographer should be happy to live like a kid working at McDonalds.

You can ask whatever you want Jorge, don't cry if you don't get it, I'll take my $.04 per square inch profit at 6 square feet per hour per machine each 12 hour day 6 days a week.Thank you. ;)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You can ask whatever you want Jorge, don't cry if you don't get it, I'll take my $.04 per square inch profit at 6 square feet per hour per machine each 12 hour day 6 days a week.Thank you. ;)

And how do you know I dont get what I ask? But hey, you like to sell your photographs like toilet paper....knock yourself out!

[Greg Lockrey]

And how do you know I dont get what I ask? But hey, you like to sell your photographs like toilet paper....knock yourself out!

I don't know what you get and really care even less. I don't need to sell anything, all the artists who come to me do all the work, all I do is push a couple of buttons and reload the printers while having intellectual discussions on internet forums about "art". I have a brother who is a doctor in Indianapolis that told me I was "prostituting my art" when I told him that he takes money from sick people. He has a 10,000 sqft house on forty acres in West Layfayette, IN. Someday I'm going to buy the acrage around him and start a pig farm.:D :eek: :D

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I don't know what you get and really care even less. I don't need to sell anything, all the artists who come to me do all the work, all I do is push a couple of buttons and reload the printers while having intellectual discussions on internet forums about "art". I have a brother who is a doctor in Indianapolis that told me I was "prostituting my art" when I told him that he takes money from sick people. He has a 10,000 sqft house on forty acres in West Layfayette, IN. Someday I'm going to buy the acrage around him and start a pig farm.:D :eek: :D

You are talking about a different thing, you print for people....I bet if the editor of Lenswork came out and said something like "You know, those leeches who print for other artists should be selling their services for a lot less than they do!" You would be up in arms. When you print your OWN work, try to sell it, market it and make a decent living out of it get back to me....till then, please move on.

[Greg Lockrey]

You are talking about a different thing, you print for people....I bet if the editor of Lenswork came out and said something like "You know, those leeches who print for other artists should be selling their services for a lot less than they do!" You would be up in arms. When you print your OWN work, try to sell it, market it and make a decent living out of it get back to me....till then, please move on.

I do sell my own work as a matter of fact. That's how I got into this business in the first place because the local print houses wanted more for a scan and print that I thought possible for the original. So I started my own print house catering to artists. I was told that I'm the largest seller of 2D artwork at the The Toledo Museum Store in terms of sales. I sell only prints. For now, I sell mostly to those artists that happen to come to my studio to get printing done. As for being a "leech", perhaps, and then too anybody can invest the $$$ I did and become my competition. $.04 sq. in. isn't all that much profit, but I make up for it on the number of machines I have running.:)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I do sell my own work as a matter of fact. That's how I got into this business in the first place because the local print houses wanted more for a scan and print that I thought possible for the original. So I started my own print house. I was told that I'm the largest seller of 2D artwork by the The Toledo Museum Store in terms of sales. For now, I sell mostly to those artists that happen to come to my studio to get printing done. As for being a "leech", perhaps, and then too anybody can invest the $$$ I did and become my competition. $.04 sq. in. isn't all that much profit, but I make up for it on the number of machines I have running.:)

Well there you go, you could not sell your work for what you thought was fair and you found an alternative, you should know better then.

The problem you dont seem to understand is this. I dont know what kind of printing you do, ink jet, chromira, etc. But whatever it is...for example lets say you do ink jet. How would you like it if Epson put out an editorial that read "to all photographers out there using printing services, the guys doing this all they have to do is push a few buttons and the work is done, dont pay the outrageous prices they ask"....which is basically what Lenswork's editor is doing.

You say anybody can invest and do what you do.....how is that different from a photographer who has invested time, effort and money? You want a fair return for your investment and time, so does a photographer trying to sell their work. We certainly don't need a guy who makes his living off the back of photographers telling people their work is not worth much...

Anyhow, seems you just want to argue for the sake of argument and are talking about a completely different thing, printing for people is not the same as selling your own work, something you failed at. The question Don posted was who would refuse to be published by Lenswork, I would.

[Greg Lockrey]

Well there you go, you could not sell your work for what you thought was fair and you found an alternative, you should know better then.

The problem you dont seem to understand is this. I dont know what kind of printing you do, ink jet, chromira, etc. But whatever it is...for example lets say you do ink jet. How would you like it if Epson put out an editorial that read "to all photographers out there using printing services, the guys doing this all they have to do is push a few buttons and the work is done, dont pay the outrageous prices they ask"....which is basically what Lenswork's editor is doing.

You say anybody can invest and do what you do.....how is that different from a photographer who has invested time, effort and money? You want a fair return for your investment and time, so does a photographer trying to sell their work. We certainly don't need a guy who makes his living off the back of photographers telling people their work is not worth much...

Anyhow, seems you just want to argue for the sake of argument and are talking about a completely different thing, printing for people is not the same as selling your own work, something you failed at. The question Don posted was who would refuse to be published by Lenswork, I would.


You misinterpreted my meaning about my selling price but I don't think I "failed" at it at all. I live in a $200.000.00 house at 1986 prices and take care of a wife with MS (shots alone cost $30 K a year) and have a 21 year old daughter who is newly diagnosed with Lupus, so she could easily get into the $30k range for expenses. I'm able to pay for all that without going on the government dole. I realised that producing "originals" that will be fresh is difficult to do so I chose to sell prints instead and found it very lucrative to help others make their prints for them. That's all. BTW my most prolific print I sell is a photomacrograph of my watercolor palate that's a 1x1 1/2" section enlarged to 30x45". It was just one of those "found" pictures that I took while checking my extension bellows. I can't seem to keep one on my wall. :) I suppose I should add up the "hours" I put in using the palate plus the time and expense to develope the film and the 30 plus years as an artist to determine the cost for each print. But then how much would have I made with my head up my a**?

[Chris Strobel]

How about just giving prints away

http://www.lenswork.com/podcast/LW0024%20-%20The%20Gift%20by%20Lewis%20Hyde.mp3

[David Luttmann]

My take on Brooks' $20 was that he was not suggesting a silver print should be priced the same. I understood his point being that he had done the workup on the photo, and was at the stage where the printing was the completed part of the process. For conventional printing, the work is done in the darkroom....for the digital printing, it had taken place in Photoshop and thus his vision of the final print was realize and now he could produce copies of it at a reduced cost for people to enjoy.

This is of course his own decision. I think it's a bit of a stretch to to not want work displayed in a magazine because the editor sells some of his prints at a reduced cost. What next....not wanting work represented in a magazine because the editor prefers a certain type of film.....or digital capture....or Lightjet printing instead of inkjet? Basing a decision to be represented in a magazine because of issues such as those could severely hamper the photographers exposure....so to speak. :)

[Ben R]

I haven't read all the material but what a lot of photographers forget is that the value of their work is far more than just the relative costs of making the print.

How much money on film and processing did you spend to get the level of professional ability that you have today? How many years of hard work? How much does your equipment cost and how much did you spend on equipment and insurance over those years? How much were your expenses is going to the location of the photograph, your costs in taking the photograph? How much is your time and expertise worth?!

Heaven help me if people start judging my wedding photography (my profession) by the costs of the frontier made prints. It is the IMAGE that you are pricing and that includes far more than just the cost of the print itself, it has to otherwise it would never be economical to bother unless we all become microstock/postcard/poster photographers and say goodbye to any notion of fine art...

[John Voss]

....what a lot of photographers forget is that the value of their work is far more than just the relative costs of making the print......


It's too bad this thread is revisiting what was so extensively discussed (argued, thrashed out, disputed....;) ) back when Brooks made his wildly controversial comment in the first place, but since he isn't participating this time 'round, I'll try to summarize his point. Which was IIRC, that, when a fine art print's price is assessed by a potential buyer, he is weighing how it fits into his scheme of how such a cost fits into his personal hierarchy of value....is it worth two dinners for two at a good restaurant, a new golf club, a piece of designer clothing, ten visits to a movie theater, etc.?

The issue for me is that each participant in the transaction has a different set of criteria.

What I think was unfair was that Brooks, at the time he wrote his essay, said he had sold $20,000.00 worth of digiprints at $20 a pop, but he sold them to buyers that knew of him and his work by way of LensWork and that 'cache' makes all the difference IMHO. I don't have a highly regarded magazine to feature my own work in, or to cash in on the good reputation I've built because of it. It was never a fair example, but, in terms of an argument, it had a lot that was worthwhile to consider.

[Greg Lockrey]

I have a very successful photographer friend (yes, I've made friends since kinder-garden) that has the philosophy of, "if you really don't want to do a job, then price yourself till no one hires you". Back in '83 he was getting $15K for a wedding. Not that he was that good, but everyone believed his hype. He would send me to shoot those weddings.

[John Voss]

I have a very successful photographer friend (yes, I've made friends since kinder-garden) that has the philosophy of, "if you really don't want to do a job, then price yourself till no one hires you".

I am not fond of private teaching (cello), so, when asked, I quote a fee that I'm almost certain will discourage anyone from studying with me. Unfortunately, some are utterly undeterred by the price and show up regularly. Happily, they are interesting and talented. Perhaps if I don't bathe for a few weeks..........:D

[Greg Lockrey]

I am not fond of private teaching (cello), so, when asked, I quote a fee that I'm almost certain will discourage anyone from studying with me. Unfortunately, some are utterly undeterred by the price and show up regularly. Happily, they are interesting and talented. Perhaps if I don't bathe for a few weeks..........:D

:D My friend liked to take care of the business part of his studio on Fridays. He would book clients knowing full well he wasn't going to photograph them. He would answer the door in his Hawaiian shirt, cut-offs and "Jesus stompers" and tell his clients that he can't shoot today because the "stars weren't aligned right". It was all about his "personna". They sucked it up and seemed to like getting abused. :D

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It's too bad this thread is revisiting what was so extensively discussed (argued, thrashed out, disputed....;) ) back when Brooks made his wildly controversial comment in the first place, but since he isn't participating this time 'round, I'll try to summarize his point. Which was IIRC, that, when a fine art print's price is assessed by a potential buyer, he is weighing how it fits into his scheme of how such a cost fits into his personal hierarchy of value....is it worth two dinners for two at a good restaurant, a new golf club, a piece of designer clothing, ten visits to a movie theater, etc.?

The issue for me is that each participant in the transaction has a different set of criteria.

What I think was unfair was that Brooks, at the time he wrote his essay, said he had sold $20,000.00 worth of digiprints at $20 a pop, but he sold them to buyers that knew of him and his work by way of LensWork and that 'cache' makes all the difference IMHO. I don't have a highly regarded magazine to feature my own work in, or to cash in on the good reputation I've built because of it. It was never a fair example, but, in terms of an argument, it had a lot that was worthwhile to consider.

Not entirely accurate, if you dont beleive me listen to his last podcast and how he compares a coffee shop to photography galleries.....where the implied message is that photography should be cheaper so that galleries can survive. WHat I find amusing is that for all the objections he has to the gallery system, his idea would only benefit gallery owners....the rest, from employees to photographers wold be making minimum wage...kind of ironic.

[JW Dewdney]

I went online to check out some of the podcasts. This guy's a serious loose canon! It sounds to me like he's been listening to KFI (if anyone knows that station) or something -it's got the same ignorant, provincial tone. Disappointing! What gave me that impression was the "MY definition of art" podcast. It would seem that if you have ANY interest in getting anywhere in the art-world - that you might want to not shoot yourself in the foot so badly!

SHEESH!!

disclaimer: I'm sure he does have SOME good things to say about SOME topics - that i'd agree with.. I heard a couple short ones that were okay... but nothing revolutionary or truly constructive, from what I'd heard so far. Still looking for good content on the net...!

[vann webb]

My Lenswork subscription is still worth more than a dozen or so Chick Fila combo meals, so I'm still buying it. Sorry. Bad joke. :)

[Turner Reich]

Lenswork should be given away for free.

[David R Munson]

Lenswork should be given away for free.

So it can be burned? :rolleyes:

[Marco Annaratone]

I can buy (and I do buy, albeit not often as I would like) modern art (read: paintings) from a San Francisco art gallery. You can buy works from new artists from $2000 to $4000, depending mostly on size.

I do not see why I should pay more than $200-$300 for a photo in a limited series of 10 that is of comparable size of the $2000 painting.

Instead the prices of photographs are quite often up to 3-5 times more.

So, I keep buying paintings.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Just read these blog thoughts on Lenswork:

http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/photowords/?p=732

4. Lenswork: I know it isn’t just me, because I’ve had private correspondence about this as well, but Lenswork appears to be losing its touch. For me this is crunch time as I have the second subscription renewal reminder. And the answer is ‘no’, I think. Brooks Jensen the podcaster is bewailing the failings of photo businesses, yet BJ the publisher seems to be falling into the very trap that he is warning others against.

I'm starting to agree - (I've looked at the last 4 issues on the newsstands and though nope - not really worth forking out for. It used to be good, but now it does seem rather moribund

I have to completely disagree. LensWork's quality of each issue is always the best, their reproduction techniques are unsurpassed and their articles and interviews are almost always interesting. I've been a long-time reader of LensWork and it is my sincere hope that I will continue be a long-time reader.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but in this case I am scratching my head. How on earth can you tell if a well executed matted and framed image hanging on a gallery or museum wall began as film or digital capture? I just don't belive you can unless the artist tells you. If there is no label I challenge you to tell the difference. Further, if a work of art moves you will the initial emotion disappear once you learn how it was produced?

In black and white, it's easy. Study a gelatin silver photograph long enough and then look at the exact same photograph in an inkjet print and they will be miles apart. Gelatin silver offers much more rich blacks, more subtle midtones and even with some of the printing techniques by some of the older master photographers which have their unique flaws cannot be matched by an inkjet print.

In color, it's much more difficult and the quality of a color photograph reproduced via inkjet is about the same or even slightly superior to a C-Print...but there would only be extremely subtle differences between the two.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

The original topic was about a podcast made by Jensen about the "coffee shop vs photography gallery" situation. I n it Jensen once more spouses the idea that photography should be cheap so that it can be accesible to everybody. The reasoning in his podcast has many flaws and IMO is a bit hypocritical. While he spouses cheap "art" photography, he sells a very expensive magazine.

As to the quality, Lenswork is one of the best printed magazines out there and as it has been stated before it has content for everybody. I think it is a good magazine, but some people are starting to get tired of the editorial messages.

PS, lets not make this another traditional vs digital thread....

As I've mentioned in other threads, the printer who does LW is an incredible printer from Vancouver. I believe he has taken LW under his wing and has made LW's quality far superior to any other magazine on the newsstands today. But in order to do that, he has to pay a pretty high price to get such a high quality magazine. That price has to be made up somewhere...

[tim atherton]

In black and white, it's easy. Study a gelatin silver photograph long enough and then look at the exact same photograph in an inkjet print and they will be miles apart. Gelatin silver offers much more rich blacks, more subtle midtones
.

ah - looks like it's time to educate yourself properly about high quality inkjet printing done by a master printer.

In the hands of a good printer inkjet prints are certainly capable of having both of those to a level which at least equals silver gelatin.

Sounds like you haven't looked at some of the best work out there

In addition, while an inkjet print and a silver gelatin print of the same image won't ever look identical (that's not the point), there will usually be many areas where the inkjet print is superior. The range of shadow detail for just one is an aspect of the prints which often surpasses what silver gelatin is capable of.

I recently submitted different sets of prints to two important art collection to chose from - each had silver gelatin and inkjet - in both cases they preferred the carbon pigment ink prints

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

BTW, I remember one person (don't think it was here, may have been APUG or pee.net) going on and on about the terrible and obvious digital manipulation in a portfolio in Lenswork - the horribly photo-shopped skies, the obviously bad photoshop masking etc etc all horror of horrors.

Turned out it was all analogue manipulation, done in the darkroom, with just the final prints scanned for publication..

Somehow, I don't think you meant pee.net (sexually explicit photos of people peeing on each other).

[tim atherton]

Somehow, I don't think you meant pee.net (sexually explicit photos of people peeing on each other).

well... I wouldn't know - but if that's what they up to over on photo.net these days it wouldn't surprise me.... :eek:

[Greg Lockrey]

ah - looks like it's time to educate yourself properly about high quality inkjet printing done by a master printer.

In the hands of a good printer inkjet prints are certainly capable of having both of those to a level which at least equals silver gelatin.

Sounds like you haven't looked at some of the best work out there

In addition, while an inkjet print and a silver gelatin print of the same image won't ever look identical (that's not the point), there will usually be many areas where the inkjet print is superior. The range of shadow detail for just one is an aspect of the prints which often surpasses what silver gelatin is capable of.

I recently submitted different sets of prints to two important art collection to chose from - each had silver gelatin and inkjet - in both cases they preferred the carbon pigment ink prints

I tend to agree more with FocusMag but only to the point that inkjet printers cannot render the extremes black and white points. Most inkjets can only get to about 25 black and 245 white. If the B&W photogragh falls into that range anyway, then I would say they would be equal to silver. A good digital photographer would realize this and work in that range. Then I would agree with Tim's statements.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

ah - looks like it's time to educate yourself properly about high quality inkjet printing done by a master printer.

In the hands of a good printer inkjet prints are certainly capable of having both of those to a level which at least equals silver gelatin.

Sounds like you haven't looked at some of the best work out there

In addition, while an inkjet print and a silver gelatin print of the same image won't ever look identical (that's not the point), there will usually be many areas where the inkjet print is superior. The range of shadow detail for just one is an aspect of the prints which often surpasses what silver gelatin is capable of.

I recently submitted different sets of prints to two important art collection to chose from - each had silver gelatin and inkjet - in both cases they preferred the carbon pigment ink prints

I have never seen a black and white inkjet print attain the same level of aesthetics a silver print can have. I've seen some very poor reproductions from an inkjet print and some very high quality looking reproductions from an inkjet print...the latter did not come close to the overall quality of a B-Grade gelatin silver print...forget about A-Grade. As far as my eye can see, a black and white inkjet print is inferior to a gelatin silver print. I have seen very few, if any galleries carry a black and white inkjet (lightjet or some other smaller, lesser knowns of digital reproduction is a different story).

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

well... I wouldn't know - but if that's what they up to over on photo.net these days it wouldn't surprise me.... :eek:

Wait you said pee.net, not photo.net. Is pee.net some kind of shorthand abreviation for photo.net? If so, all you're doing is not typing 2 additional keys...why would photo.net need to be shorthanded and why would you shorthand it to THAT?? I'm still feeling queezy from looking at that...can't believe there are people who actually like that....:confused:

[tim atherton]

I tend to agree more with FocusMag but only to the point that inkjet printers cannot render the extremes black and white points. Most inkjets can only get to about 25 black and 245 white. If the B&W photogragh falls into that range anyway, then I would say they would be equal to silver. A good digital photographer would realize this and work in that range. Then I would agree with Tim's statements.


well, it depends as much on the paper as on the printer

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

in both cases they preferred the carbon pigment ink prints

This could also mean you are not that good of a silver printer.


As I've mentioned in other threads, the printer who does LW is an incredible printer from Vancouver. I believe he has taken LW under his wing and has made LW's quality far superior to any other magazine on the newsstands today. But in order to do that, he has to pay a pretty high price to get such a high quality magazine. That price has to be made up somewhere...

Precisely my point, a photographer who takes great care in producing a print, uses the best possible methods, and takes the outmost care to produce beautiful work should be able to charge for that expense and effort. Why is it ok for a magazine publisher to say "I take great care on producing this magazine and should get my expense back" and it is not ok for a photographer to say the same when he/she does the same for EACH AND EVERY single photograph he/she makes?

[Greg Lockrey]

well, it depends as much on the paper as on the printer

It's one of the factors, no doubt about it. Even the best case senerio the limits still don't get to silver. But close. Only if we are discussing B&W. Color is a different animal.

[tim atherton]

It's one of the factors, no doubt about it. Even the best case senerio the limits still don't get to silver. But close.

I just checked the one print I have on hand that I recently did which has a big chunk of shadow in it - a brightly lit exteriior with, in the centre, a large opening into a darkened mechanics garage - much of the shadows going to full black, but with a range right through the deepest shadows.

Running the numbers on the file in photoshop and comparing it to the detail that shows in the shadows in the print, it easily goes down to 7 or 8

In fact it show the full range of shadow detail that is in the file (which isn't one I produced)

Many of the newer papers have allow a much deeper range of shadow detail from full black (at a very deep D-Max on the print) right through the range

Most of the older papers just don't compare

[tim atherton]

This could also mean you are not that good of a silver printer.


which isn't the case

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

which isn't the case

If you say so.,.....

[tim atherton]

If you say so.,.....

yes - I certainly do

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

yes - I certainly do

uh huh....

[Greg Lockrey]

I just checked the one print I have on hand that I recently did which has a big chunk of shadow in it - a brightly lit exteriior with, in the centre, a large opening into a darkened mechanics garage - much of the shadows going to full black, but with a range right through the deepest shadows.

Running the numbers on the file in photoshop and comparing it to the detail that shows in the shadows in the print, it easily goes down to 7 or 8

In fact it show the full range of shadow detail that is in the file (which isn't one I produced)

Many of the newer papers have allow a much deeper range of shadow detail from full black (at a very deep D-Max on the print) right through the range

Most of the older papers just don't compare

Yes, that's true on the monitor. But if you made a step wedge on paper with 3 or so increments, you would see that you can't tell the difference from 20-25 in most cases. Sometimes if conditions are right, you can get to 18-20. If there is a paper that lets you see down to 7-8 that would be wonderful.

[tim atherton]

What I was doing was effectively a step wedge - albelit an irregualr one...

I likley don't have them any more, but the step wedges I pritned off when I tested these Crane papers showed much better speration in the low range than anything else I had used. Well below 15 but it was a 100 step test wedge, so I can't remeber offhand exactly what it was showing in terms of 0-255

[Greg Lockrey]

What I was doing was effectively a step wedge - albelit an irregualr one...

I likley don't have them any more, but the step wedges I pritned off when I tested these Crane papers showed much better speration in the low range than anything else I had used. Well below 15 but it was a 100 step test wedge, so I can't remeber offhand exactly what it was showing in terms of 0-255

Another issue is the 0 point for the black the deepest black possible? I say this in the event that if the black is in fact not maximum, the wedge would be off be a bit. I personnaly use Atcheson profiles most of the time. I do see that the Blacks seem to be darker than the canned profile. With the canned profile on Enhances matt for example, I can get to about 10-15, but the Atcheson is more near 20-25 for the same paper and wedge.

[Gordon Moat]

Commercial printing, like Lenswork, is not continuous tone. Take a look at the Albert Watson book Cyclops, and you will find an example of very well done B/W image reproduction in book form. It might make a good comparison to Lenswork. On the colour end of things, the best magazine reproduction I have yet seen is a publication out of Detroit called CLEAR (http://www.clearmag.com/). While the subject matter might be outside what some here might like, the printing quality and paper choice are extremely high quality for any publication.

Inkjet prints are not continuous tone. Many of them attempt to mimic continuous tone by overlapping dot placement, or simply by the greater dot gain inherent in these types of printers.

Silver prints and C-prints (RA-4) are continuous tone. While it might be tougher to tell when a print is behind glass, the look of a continuous tone print should be discernible from an inkjet print, or from a print off a press. This does not necessarily make them better, since that is a personal choice for people to decide, though it does make these chemical prints different. My personal preference is towards these continuous tone prints, even though I have seen compelling images done on inkjet, or as reproductions off a press.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Precisely my point, a photographer who takes great care in producing a print, uses the best possible methods, and takes the outmost care to produce beautiful work should be able to charge for that expense and effort. Why is it ok for a magazine publisher to say "I take great care on producing this magazine and should get my expense back" and it is not ok for a photographer to say the same when he/she does the same for EACH AND EVERY single photograph he/she makes?

I haven't listened to that specific podcast yet, so I don't neccessarily understand the context in which he was speaking, nor do I wish to speak for BJ, however; I believe that he thinks that the market price for a photograph is inflated right now and the average price is much too expensive to help the market grow if people really wish to sell their works and get massive expsoure to many collectors, thus helping the market itself grow. There is always a third factor in the supply and demand equation...the price of the product. If the product is over priced, too many people won't buy it. If it's underpriced, too many people will buy it and there won't be enough supply to keep up with demand. The problem lies that the price needs to be high enough so everyone who has the supply can make a profit. At $20 a print, the photographer can't even make a profit on the frames and with other larger market photographers selling their works for between $1000 and $2500, the smaller market photographers selling their works for $250 - $500 look inferior because of their pricing...

I do think that the market pricing strategy is complerely out of whack. There are people today selling their original photographs for the same price as a smaller Edward Weston piece and someone who rephotographed a bunch of ciggerette cartons sold his work for over $1 Million...usually in a capitalist society, the price for a product is determined by the value of the product... in art, there is no concrete value to set a market price at...and so exists our current problem...one to which I see no end to in the near future. When film and film-based papers have completely ceased production 10-25 years from now, the price for traditional-based photographs will skyrocket leaving digital inkjet print prices in the dust.

[Greg Lockrey]

What is an "original photograph" excactly? The first attempt from the negative? In my "Zone Photography" class in college, we had to make the prints using the exposures and developing times based on a predetermined calibrated negative. It had to be spot on with #2 paper. Grades for technical expertise were based on D.Max and highlight density. Or is it the first one that satisfies the photographer after he manipulates the negative and paper? Then is the second image considered "original" if it is exactly the same? How about that guy who is authorized to make A.A. prints that now number over 85,000. I maintain that there is no such thing as an "original photograph" unless the negative is destroyed otherwise it's just a print.

[Michael Heald]

Hello! The current issue that contains B&W abstract photography left me scratching my head, particularly when it seemed to need an introductory essay to explain it.
The kibuki dancers were exotically interesting, but not my cup of tea, if you will. Best regards.

Mike

[tim atherton]

At $20 a print, the photographer can't even make a profit on the frames and with other larger market photographers selling their works for between $1000 and $2500, the smaller market photographers selling their works for $250 - $500 look inferior because of their pricing...

I do think that the market pricing strategy is completely out of whack. There are people today selling their original photographs for the same price as a smaller Edward Weston piece and someone who rephotographed a bunch of ciggerette cartons sold his work for over $1 Million...usually in a capitalist society, the price for a product is determined by the value of the product... in art, there is no concrete value to set a market price at...and so exists our current problem...one to which I see no end to in the near future. When film and film-based papers have completely ceased production 10-25 years from now, the price for traditional-based photographs will skyrocket leaving digital inkjet print prices in the dust.

I do think a mistake that people often seem to make is comparing the vintage print market with the market for contemporary art photography - it's not quite apples and oranges, but close. I know of a few gallery owners who sell almost exclusively vintage prints who are smacking their lips in anticipation of prices skyrocketing. There is a general welcome upward trends, but with a few exceptions there is still going to be a difference between the two markets for the foreseeable future - after that, who knows. Anyone who could predict the long term trends in art and the art market would be many times richer than Bill Gates....

[paulr]

I have never seen a black and white inkjet print attain the same level of aesthetics a silver print can have.

I'd like to show you some.

[David R Munson]

I'd like to show you some.

+1

The last commercial portfolio I put together still has people asking where I got the c-prints made because they look so good. Some people have been incredulous that they're not Ilfochromes or silver prints. Surprise surprise, they were printed 4 years ago on an Epson 1280 on regular old Epson premium glossy.

Bottom line is that if you know what you're doing, you can make any output method produce damned good results.

[paulr]

and i mean it literally ... focusmag and i are both in brooklyn. and i happen to have a body of work that was printed both in silver and in ink.

the ink methods i use don't look at all like silver printing, but they're beautiful in their own way, and at least half the time i prefer the results to silver.

[jnantz]

i like lenswork. interesting portfolios, well printed.
i don't have a sub, but will probably have one by year's end, my
local bookseller doesn't get enough of them, so i only see the mag
from time to time ...
a 'tog friend of mine printed out one of those kharma-prints last time i saw him.
it was beautiful!

i don't think he is telling everyone to sell their prints for 20$.
for the most part if you are selling your work on e-Boo, you are
pretty much doing the same thing. he is just cutting out the fees :)

-john

[Greg Lockrey]

Inkjet prints are not continuous tone. Many of them attempt to mimic continuous tone by overlapping dot placement, or simply by the greater dot gain inherent in these types of printers.

Silver prints and C-prints (RA-4) are continuous tone. While it might be tougher to tell when a print is behind glass, the look of a continuous tone print should be discernible from an inkjet print, or from a print off a press.

This is very true, but film is a series of grain structures not really that much different than pixals other than that they are more random and illregular in shape.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I'd like to show you some.

Let me see how a few things go in the next couple of weeks. If you can show me an inkjet print that looks as good or even superior to a gelatin silver...well, I just might have to eat crow. We'll see...

[paulr]

Let me see how a few things go in the next couple of weeks. If you can show me an inkjet print that looks as good or even superior to a gelatin silver...well, I just might have to eat crow. We'll see...

you won't have to eat crow just because things changed since the last time you looked!

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

you won't have to eat crow just because things changed since the last time you looked!

It's been a while since we've accepted actual submissions instead of CD submissions.. and while some of the submissions I received from inkjet were outstanding, I always prefered the gelatin silver. Show me an inkjet that is superior to gelatin silver and well...you'll be raising some eyebrows.

[Greg Lockrey]

Show me a silver print as good as it's negative too.:)

[paulr]

IShow me an inkjet that is superior to gelatin silver and well...you'll be raising some eyebrows.

If you're partial to certain specific qualities of gelatin silver--inky blacks, and an air-dried glossy surface, for instance--then you won't prefer the prints that i can show you.

If you're open to other qualities, like a long straight line scale, and the delicate surface qualities you can get with ink on artist's papers, then you might like these a lot.

[Turner Reich]

Lenswork is a digi-magazine, it stopped being a photography magazine when it started to include digital stuff. They got lazy and just started to include it, probably thinking it was the way of the future. Well, there is already too many digital injections into photography. When you don't know what you are looking at then it is pure scenery and not worth a dime. You might as well look at junk magazines at the doctors office. Lenswork is just travel log. It's not serious photography.

[Stephen Willard]

Every time I stop into a gallery I can always spot digital inkjet prints without effort. They are distinctly different and have there own style. However, for me they lack the rich creamy tones found in a traditional print, and they seem to be flat and lack brilliance. I do not know if I am looking at the latest inkjet print technology or not. I suspect I am not because most digital photographers I know can no longer afford to stay current with the latest breakthroughs.

The best digital work I have seen was recently at a Thomas Mangelsen Gallery where all of his 35mm wildlife images are scanned to make lightjet prints. The workmanship is very good, but I can still see a noticeable difference. Oddly enough, all of his newer medium format work is printed optically using Ilforchrome papers. The sales person at the gallery went to great lengths to let me know his newer work was not digitally printed.

[David Luttmann]

Lenswork is a digi-magazine, it stopped being a photography magazine when it started to include digital stuff. They got lazy and just started to include it, probably thinking it was the way of the future. Well, there is already too many digital injections into photography. When you don't know what you are looking at then it is pure scenery and not worth a dime. You might as well look at junk magazines at the doctors office. Lenswork is just travel log. It's not serious photography.

It stopped being a photography magazine when they included digital stuff? If it wasn't for the captions, you wouldn't have been able to tell the method of capture.

I'd say you stopped being a photographer and artist when you decided that different types of capture or printing dictates whether or not it's photography. Your definition seems to be an ignorant and biased one, thankfully not supported by the photographic community as a whole.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

If you're partial to certain specific qualities of gelatin silver--inky blacks, and an air-dried glossy surface, for instance--then you won't prefer the prints that i can show you.

If you're open to other qualities, like a long straight line scale, and the delicate surface qualities you can get with ink on artist's papers, then you might like these a lot.

I'm open to looking at a beautiful photograph with rich tonal range and magnificent quality that looks as good or superior to a silver print. A silver print, by the way, is one of the standards I have. No form of artifical printing can ever compare with a contact print.

[tim atherton]

No form of artifical printing can ever compare with a contact print.

c'mon, you know such an absolutist statement is just cant' work - a contact print isn't always the best print.

Talking original photographs prints, which would you prefer of the two, a contact print of Henri Cartier Bresson's man jumping of the puddle at the Gare whatnot, or an "artificial" print (though I'm not quite sure what you mean by that - I'm having to assume any kind of enlargement? as every print is "artificial")

[paulr]

No form of artifical printing can ever compare with a contact print.

i'll take on that supposition as well.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Lenswork is a digi-magazine, it stopped being a photography magazine when it started to include digital stuff. They got lazy and just started to include it, probably thinking it was the way of the future. Well, there is already too many digital injections into photography. When you don't know what you are looking at then it is pure scenery and not worth a dime. You might as well look at junk magazines at the doctors office. Lenswork is just travel log. It's not serious photography.

Listen guys, everyone in here has their opinions. As much as I feel traditional photography has better quality than digital inkjet, I still respect the photographers who spend their time, effort and money on creating an inkjet print. To say that you don't respect LensWork magazine because it includes digital photography is kind of insulting and wrong. I've never met Brooks nor have I really ever spoken to him, but I know that he puts out a top quality magazine. You guys sit back there and think "Well, this issue wasn't as good as the last so overall the magazine's terrible" you have no idea what kind of time, effort and money goes into producing a single issue of a magazine. Tell me you don't think digital photography is as good of a quality or that you don't like it as much because of the machines involved with digital vs. the hand-crafted time it takes with traditional, fine, but to not call digital photography, photography and to dis-respect a magazine like LensWork is just really wrong. For anyone here who thinks that LensWork isn't a real photography magazine or doesn't respect LW, I challenge you to go put out your own magazine with better quality than LW and do it over the same period of time BJ has done while earning some kind of profit. How many people did he have to hire to go through the countless submissions he must get, how many people did he have to hire to go through each issue before he sends it to the printer and make sure everything was perfect? How many people's careers are spent devoted to making LW as good of a magazine as you can get? And I think I saw this before, if BJ came knocking on your door and asked you to be in one of the next issues of LW, I would bet over 90% of you would be thrilled. Don't like digital photography or inkjet printing, fine, I can understand it. Don't knock the photographers or the magazines who produce photography from digital photographers or inkjet photographs.

[tim atherton]

I think you are missing the main point David - it's a very high quality magazine - in terms of production values - whose content has become rather stagnant and boring for many.

[Greg Lockrey]

That settles it for me then....I only want to see contact prints in my magazine 8x10" or larger. I'm getting tired of having to get out my magnifing glass to get Lenworks prints to look like 8x10's. And if it's going to be considered as "Art" then only B&W and Color if it's manipulated for artistic effect. Color if it is "natural" is nothing more than a snap shot. If the image can't last 100 years in the open sun, don't even submit it.


Whilst I'm on my rant....only images from "whole" cameras will be accepted . No HALF cameras. Only stereo photographs....the way God intended us to see with two eyes

[David Luttmann]

That settles it for me then....I only want to see contact prints in my magazine 8x10" or larger. I'm getting tired of having to get out my magnifing glass to get Lenworks prints to look like 8x10's. And if it's going to be considered as "Art" then only B&W and Color if it's manipulated for artistic effect. Color if it is "natural" is nothing more than a snap shot. If the image can't last 100 years in the open sun, don't even submit it.


Whilst I'm on my rant....only images from "whole" cameras will be accepted . No HALF cameras. Only stereo photographs....the way God intended us to see with two eyes

I personally think the film gets in the way of the REAL image. Real men expose directly to paper!

[Greg Lockrey]

I personally think the film gets in the way of the REAL image. Real men expose directly to paper!

Yeah, Yeah!!!



Is Polaroid ok?

[David Luttmann]

Yeah, Yeah!!!



Is Polaroid ok?

Well, OK. But not for Lenswork or Focus. I think Polaroids should only show up in Shutterbug.

[Greg Lockrey]

Well, OK. But not for Lenswork or Focus. I think Polaroids should only show up in Shutterbug.

Now talking about your digital rag.:eek:

[cobalt]

In black and white, it's easy. Study a gelatin silver photograph long enough and then look at the exact same photograph in an inkjet print and they will be miles apart. Gelatin silver offers much more rich blacks, more subtle midtones and even with some of the printing techniques by some of the older master photographers which have their unique flaws cannot be matched by an inkjet print.

In color, it's much more difficult and the quality of a color photograph reproduced via inkjet is about the same or even slightly superior to a C-Print...but there would only be extremely subtle differences between the two.


Oh my Zircon encrusted tutu wearing, cross-dressing moon goddess...I am in what seems to be complete agreement with the focusmag guy...:-0

Where's that cup of hemlock when you need it...?

[cobalt]

I think you are missing the main point David - it's a very high quality magazine - in terms of production values - whose content has become rather stagnant and boring for many.

Funny...I find it neither boring nor stagnant. I am sick of Half Dome. Can't take another cala lily. And long exposures of the local creek---gimmee a break!!!

Most of what I see from large format photographers is rather dull and lacking in terms of inspirational value. It's relatively easy to learn how to create a sharp image using a view camera. Creating art...now that's another thing completely.

What I see in Lenswork is the courage to break from the norm from time to time. That's what artists do. I know. I've been one for more than 30 years...before getting into photography.

Then again, most photographers are not artists, but technicians. Artists don't quibble over the validity of a particular medium. Although I find oil paint a superior medium to acrylic, I don't deride gifted artists and the art they create simply because they choose to use acrylic paint. To do so would be....stupid.

[Greg Lockrey]

Funny...I find it neither boring nor stagnant. I am sick of Half Dome. Can't take another cala lily. And long exposures of the local creek---gimmee a break!!!

Most of what I see from large format photographers is rather dull and lacking in terms of inspirational value. It's relatively easy to learn how to create a sharp image using a view camera. Creating art...now that's another thing completely.

What I see in Lenswork is the courage to break from the norm from time to time. That's what artists do. I know. I've been one for more than 30 years...before getting into photography.

Then again, most photographers are not artists, but technicians. Artists don't quibble over the validity of a particular medium. Although I find oil paint a superior medium to acrylic, I don't deride gifted artists and the art they create simply because they choose to use acrylic paint. To do so would be....stupid.

HERE HERE!!!

[tim atherton]

What I see in Lenswork is the courage to break from the norm from time to time. That's what artists do. I know. I've been one for more than 30 years...before getting into photography.


Unfortunately, a part of the problem seems to be that it's mostly (with one or two exceptions) trying to break from the photographic norm circa 1974

[Chris Strobel]

Can't take another cala lily

Ahh come on now, just one more :D

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/79993628/original.jpg

[Eric James]

Where did you get the background for this image - I'd be willing to pay 10$ for a background this great, provided that it was shot in the midwest on 8X10 or greater, and the file must be 16 bit and completely black. Anyone:rolleyes:

Very nice Chris - any others:)

[David Luttmann]

Ahh come on now, just one more :D

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/79993628/original.jpg

Nice...

Let me know if the capture method was film or digital so I can decide whether or not I like the shot. ;)

[Chris Strobel]

16x20 view camera, contact print, never entered a digital workflow at all, I contact printed direct to the web ;)























p.s. kidding of course, 4x5 and nikkor w 150mm, fp4+/pmk, 4990 scan, hot light and black velour background

Nice...

Let me know if the capture method was film or digital so I can decide whether or not I like the shot. ;)

[Greg Lockrey]

LOL LOL HA HA HA LOL LOL I never laughed so hard.:D :D :D

[Oren Grad]

I contact printed direct to the web ;)

Well dangnabbit - my holy grail! And free of Newton's rings, no less. I'm in awe.

I must learn your technique. Do you give workshops?

[David Luttmann]

16x20 view camera, contact print, never entered a digital workflow at all, I contact printed direct to the web ;)


Oh....Ilford film. I may need to rethink that :D




















p.s. kidding of course, 4x5 and nikkor w 150mm, fp4+/pmk, 4990 scan, hot light and black velour background

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I think you are missing the main point David - it's a very high quality magazine - in terms of production values - whose content has become rather stagnant and boring for many.

I understand some people feel that way and they are entitled to have that opinion and express it, however; it's very hard work putting together a magazine. LW, being one of the best magazines out there, is allowed one or two issues that aren't as good as the others. Listen, I'm sure BJ can come here and speak for himself, if he chooses to. But the fact of the matter is, LW has been around for over a decade publishing the best there is out there. You can't abandon them for one or two bad issues....

[D. Bryant]

I understand some people feel that way and they are entitled to have that opinion and express it, however; it's very hard work putting together a magazine. LW, being one of the best magazines out there, is allowed one or two issues that aren't as good as the others. Listen, I'm sure BJ can come here and speak for himself, if he chooses to. But the fact of the matter is, LW has been around for over a decade publishing the best there is out there. You can't abandon them for one or two bad issues....

Does anyone remeber Lens Work before there were photos published in the magazine? LW has been through an evolution over the years. It wasn't born the magazine that it is today which means it will probably change in the future.

One magazine that I think that has improved is Camera Arts. I'm even considering subscribing to it.

Don Bryant

[tim atherton]

I understand some people feel that way and they are entitled to have that opinion and express it, however; it's very hard work putting together a magazine. LW, being one of the best magazines out there, is allowed one or two issues that aren't as good as the others. Listen, I'm sure BJ can come here and speak for himself, if he chooses to. But the fact of the matter is, LW has been around for over a decade publishing the best there is out there. You can't abandon them for one or two bad issues....

the discussion from elsewhere that was quoted at the start of this thread can be found recently in several other places on the Internet in different photo related discussions.

There are a good number of people who like Lenswork the way it is and like the sort of work that it is publishing now.

But there also seems to be a good number of people - most of whom used to be Lenswork subscribers - who have found over not just the last couple of issues, but the last couple of years or so that what is being published has become somewhat staid and repetitive.

These are all people who used to enjoy Lenswork at one time, but now feel it's not the magazine it used to be - and by all accounts they've given it the benefit of the doubt for quite a while.

I'd say, based on the discussions I've read, it's a significant enough number of people that there has to be some substance in what they say - these aren't people who've never liked Lenswork and never will.

But then again, there may be there are plenty enough people who like the magazine just the way it is....

Lenswork is pretty expensive for a magazine. It's doesnt matter how slick it looks - if people don't like the content anymore, they aren't going to renew their subscriptions.

I'm like a good number of others - I used to buy most issues when they hit the newsstands. I haven't seen a copy that grabbed me the way they used to in the last couple of years or so and so it gets picked up, flicked through and - sadly - put back on the shelf.

[PViapiano]

Tim,

Why do you feel you must continually berate LensWork? If you don't like it, don't buy it...very simple solution for you.

Your "hipper-than-thou" attitude is getting tired with all the repetition...give it a rest and continue on your blog if you'd like, but we're tired of hearing it over here.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

the discussion from elsewhere that was quoted at the start of this thread can be found recently in several other places on the Internet in different photo related discussions.

There are a good number of people who like Lenswork the way it is and like the sort of work that it is publishing now.

But there also seems to be a good number of people - most of whom used to be Lenswork subscribers - who have found over not just the last couple of issues, but the last couple of years or so that what is being published has become somewhat staid and repetitive.

These are all people who used to enjoy Lenswork at one time, but now feel it's not the magazine it used to be - and by all accounts they've given it the benefit of the doubt for quite a while.

I'd say, based on the discussions I've read, it's a significant enough number of people that there has to be some substance in what they say - these aren't people who've never liked Lenswork and never will.

But then again, there may be there are plenty enough people who like the magazine just the way it is....

Lenswork is pretty expensive for a magazine. It's doesnt matter how slick it looks - if people don't like the content anymore, they aren't going to renew their subscriptions.

I'm like a good number of others - I used to buy most issues when they hit the newsstands. I haven't seen a copy that grabbed me the way they used to in the last couple of years or so and so it gets picked up, flicked through and - sadly - put back on the shelf.

Tim, all I have to say is if LW and B&W weren't doing what they do on newsstands, I wouldn't be as lucky as I am to be involved in the photography community. The last time I checked, LW was selling well, well, well over the industry standard. It has done incredible on newsstands since I first launched. I don't have numbers for CA or VC, but I know for a fact that LW is in the top 2 magazines in the fine art photography category on newsstands right now...the dissatisfaction only seems to be among a few people. I am proud to be in the same category as them and I hope they stay around another 100 years.

[Turner Reich]

I think you are missing the main point David - it's a very high quality magazine - in terms of production values - whose content has become rather stagnant and boring for many.

I couldn't have said it any better than that! It's been stagnant and boring for a long long time. It would be far better if they changed to say graphic design or art for a while to clear their heads.

Or they could make the break and go totally digital content and really get stagnant and boring.

[cobalt]

The guilty man proclaims his innocence the loudest.

How many of us are actually artists here, as opposed to wealthy individuals who like to play with cameras and chemicals?

I read a passage recently...Jock Sturges, I believe it was...on another forum. Now, of course, I am assuming it was him, this is the net, after all. Anyway, the writer indicated that he over exposed everything and never bothered with a meter when he photographs. Oh...and I've also read that Sally Mann generally used old, beat to death glass with chips, cracks and the like. No Super Symmars to be found in her arsenal.

My point is, hobbyists generally quibble over the dumbest things, such as which tool or medium to use, as well as who is boring and stagnant. Artists use what they use--and make art.

My experience in the art world has taught me that those who trip over midgets, in a manner of speaking, generally have little else to offer than their opinions...

[Greg Lockrey]

I have found that when you get a group of really experienced photogs together about all they talk about is their tripods when they aren't talking about the stock market.

[Brooks Jensen]

Sorry to be joining the party so late . . . I just discovered this thread late yesterday!

Thanks one and all for the incredibly passionate feedback about our magazine, both supportive and, well, constructive.

My response? I guess I have a broader perspective than some because I remember the old days when Popular Photography, Modern Photography, and Shutterbug were about it. When I scan about and see both the diversity and quality of today's photography magazines, my breath is literally taken away. I would have never thought that we would be able to choose our magazine subscriptions from so many wonderful publications, so many styles of publication, editorial content, and points of view. I simply think it's the best time -- at least in my lifetime -- to be a photographer. And I'm glad to be a part of it and to have so many folks who share a passion for photography with me. Sure, it's a big tent and there are all kinds of perfectly valid points of view and ways of thinking about photography, but when all is said and done, everyone who has contributed to this discussion has done so because they are passionate about photography -- and that fact binds us more than our differences separate us. Just my point of view.

LensWork is, no doubt, a niche magazine. Certainly we cannot please all the folks, all the time. We don't even try to. Our best hope is to simply be part of the landscape of the discussion about creative photography, and based on the number of views of this thread, I see we are at least succeeding in that goal!

BTW, lest anyone think LensWork is "in trouble" as a publication, let me dispel the myth. We are just preparing issue #71 for the printer and I am proud and humbled to say that it is the 71st issue in a row that has an increase in subscribers, an increase in press run, and that we have just hired additional staff to help keep up with our business growth. How can I possibly thank all of you enough for making this possible? This is our 15th year of publishing and we are still breaking our own records with every issue. God willing, we will be here for a long time to come.

And one other small factoid that I am again humbled and proud to share: sometime last month the 1,000,000th podcast MP3 file was downloaded from our server. Again, our deepest and heartfelt thank you to everyone for all your support and for sharing your creative life with us. It warms my heart more than you know that there are so many people around the world who think of photography as such an important part of their life.

Brooks Jensen
LensWork Publishing

[Brian C. Miller]

Brooks, I miss the photograveurs. Sniff, sniff, siiiiiigh.....

[tim atherton]

give it a rest and continue on your blog if you'd like, but we're tired of hearing it over here.

it seems you are simply incorrect

if you don't like discussions, maybe keep out of the forum...?

(Forum: A public meeting place for open discussion

[PViapiano]

Wow, so I wake up to Brooks actually weighing in on LensWork!

Now, here's one classy guy who rises above the fray...my hat's off to him for the way he's handled this rebuttal. A lesson in difference of opinion, and like many of the editorials in LW, a lesson to be learned from if only we would keep an open mind.

[Christopher Perez]

Cobalt, well said.

Tools are just, well, tools. As I said earlier, the only thing that matters is the final image.

People might ask themselves, how did they get to the final image? It's a matter of tools, and not really that big a deal.



... My point is, hobbyists generally quibble over the dumbest things, such as which tool or medium to use, as well as who is boring and stagnant. Artists use what they use--and make art...

[Christopher Perez]

Brooks, keep up the great work.


Sorry to be joining the party so late . . . I just discovered this thread late yesterday!

Thanks one and all for the incredibly passionate feedback about our magazine, both supportive and, well, constructive...

[tim atherton]

My response? I guess I have a broader perspective than some because I remember the old days when Popular Photography, Modern Photography, and Shutterbug were about it.

But you know, sometimes they actually got it right! - I still have an old Pop Photo annual edition from the early 80's - it had Martin Parr, Chris Killip, Sally Mann, John Blakemore (and a bunch of others I forget right now) all in the one mag - but that was more a flash in the pan...



LensWork is, no doubt, a niche magazine. Certainly we cannot please all the folks, all the time. We don't even try to. Our best hope is to simply be part of the landscape of the discussion about creative photography, and based on the number of views of this thread, I see we are at least succeeding in that goal!

I think the biggest critical response I have come across in the last few weeks has been about what seems to some to be a certain visual rut that the magazine appears been stuck in for the last couple of years (this from folks who once upon a time bought every issue). Of course one persons rut is another person's groove...

One thing that strikes me is that a lot of this feeling parallels issues and current debate about the place of contemporary black and white photography (b&w obviously being very much Lensworks ethos). There is much contemporary B&W work which isn't typically the sort of work seen in Lenswork these days (and I think once upon a time some of it was).

And while you obviously depend on submissions, there's a whole area of contemporary b& w photography that could be explored, but isn't, from John Gossage and Sugimoto, through to Osamu Kanemura, Jason Evans, An My Le (did you feature her?), Susan Lipper, Idris Kahn, Michael Wesely, Alan Cohen, Jeffrey Ladd, Gregory Conniff... and more

I think the feeling of some is that there was a time when Lenswork did feature exciting contemporary work

That said, were you to feature this kind of work I'm sure you'd get as many complaints about it from those who like things just the way they are...


BTW, lest anyone think LensWork is "in trouble" as a publication, let me dispel the myth. We are just preparing issue #71 for the printer and I am proud and humbled to say that it is the 71st issue in a row that has an increase in subscribers, an increase in press run, and that we have just hired additional staff to help keep up with our business growth. How can I possibly thank all of you enough for making this possible? This is our 15th year of publishing and we are still breaking our own records with every issue. God willing, we will be here for a long time to come.

I think I made that point yesterday - there are probably plenty enough and more readers who happen to like lenswork exactly the way it is and will keep it being a success.

[tim atherton]

Now, here's one classy guy who rises above the fray, and I include myself in that count, instead of sniping and trying to prove how hip he is by talking about "modernism" in photography.

Modernism in photography hasn't been "hip" for, oh I don't know, 50 years or so....



and forcing his opinion on everyone else here

I think that's actually your problem

[paulr]

... and forcing his opinion on everyone else here.

yes, i've become so concerned about Tim forcing his opinion on me that i've decided to unplug my computer and start wearing an aluminum foil hat.

god help us all if i suddenly start liking that crazy work from the last four or five decades ... and all because of his evil influence.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Sorry to be joining the party so late . . . I just discovered this thread late yesterday!

I need to take your PR class.... :D

[tim atherton]

I need to take your PR class.... :D

LOL - what until your "nudie" (aka Jock Sturges issue) issue comes out.... then you'll have fun

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

LOL - what until your "nudie" (aka Jock Sturges issue) issue comes out.... then you'll have fun

You have no idea what kind of hell my printer gave me when I showed them a PDF of the Jock Sturges article...I got real tired of their holier than thou closed mindedness real fast and in the process found a printer that's saying they can get my quality up to LW standards with 300 linescreen compared to the 133 we've been using. Anyway, I went to over two dozen printers nationwide...I found one printer who was okay with the images, but he couldn't find a place to get it bound...in the end, I didn't wind up using any of his more controversial images as I would have liked to.

[Nate Battles]

Sometimes Lenswork really seems to be on top of things. I listen to every podcast by Brooks Jensen. I agree and I disagree. At times he seems to be harsh towards the art market and his sour views on abstract art are quite blatant. Although his own work seems rather abstract at times. This also opens up that age old question about what constitutes art. Let's not discuss that here, not now. Lenswork is also exclusive to silver gelatin printers, which will inevitably limit their portfolio submissions, but that is probably a good thing. I think he has done a great job at expanding coverage of that magazine by adding the Lenswork Extended, and his podcasts have certainly helped me when I've been in a photographic slump. For the most part, I think Lenswork is doing a fine job at providing quality reproduced work in a magazine.

~nate

[Chris Strobel]

Sometimes Lenswork really seems to be on top of things. I listen to every podcast by Brooks Jensen. I agree and I disagree. At times he seems to be harsh towards the art market and his sour views on abstract art are quite blatant. Although his own work seems rather abstract at times. This also opens up that age old question about what constitutes art. Let's not discuss that here, not now. Lenswork is also exclusive to silver gelatin printers, which will inevitably limit their portfolio submissions, but that is probably a good thing. I think he has done a great job at expanding coverage of that magazine by adding the Lenswork Extended, and his podcasts have certainly helped me when I've been in a photographic slump. For the most part, I think Lenswork is doing a fine job at providing quality reproduced work in a magazine.

~nate

Are you sure its exclusive to silver gelatin printers?There have been quite a few digital submissions lately including Brooks own work shot with an Olympus digital camera.

[tim atherton]

Lenswork is also exclusive to silver gelatin printers, which will inevitably limit their portfolio submissions,
~nate

I'm pretty sure that's not correct?

[Doug Dolde]

Exclusively black and white but inkjet prints are allowable.

[Harley Goldman]

Digital photographers and printers are featured in Lenswork all the time. Brooks is not very "equipment centered".

[scott_6029]

there is plenty of digital...I like the lenswork extended version. The extra's are well worth it, video, podcast, extra images, etc.

[Jan Pedersen]

there is plenty of digital...I like the lenswork extended version. The extra's are well worth it, video, podcast, extra images, etc.

I agree with Scott, there's a lot of extra by getting the extended subscription which i just renewed yesterday.
Would like to see some alternative work in addition to Silver and inkjet prints but guess it wouldn't show anyway with the current printing technique.
The last issue (72) is however in my opinion one of the better. Richard Murai's portfolio is exelent and i look forward to see the extended CD.

[D. Bryant]

Exclusively black and white but inkjet prints are allowable.
Strictly speaking, there has been color work printed in Lens Work.

Don Bryant

[Scott Kathe]

I would consider myself a novice but I like Lenswork. I've been shooting film for seven years now and only been subscribing to Lenswork for a couple of years at this point so I don't know if it has gone downhill or not. Some issues are better than others or I should say I am more interested in some issues than others. The thing I like most about it is that I am exposed to photography that I wouldn't normally be interested in. I find that I like at least some of the work outside of my field of interest and can learn from nearly all of it. For that reason alone it is worth the subscription price. Lenswork Extended, I'm not sure about...

Scott

[russyoung]

Interesting that nearly every contributor to this thread has centered on the images - to the almost total exclusion of the texts. Bill Jay is one of the very few writers who always interest me- and has credibility (David Vestal, A. D. Coleman and Mike Johnson are the others). Sometimes even BK writes an editorial that is engaging. Good writing on image making is far rarer than good images.
Your mileage may vary.
Russ

[Nate Battles]

You are correct. They have updated their submission guidelines. Just a few months ago they were only accepting gelatin silver prints or so I thought I read. I stand corrected.