I didnt notice if Steve Anchell wrote any articles for the two issues I've seen. I hope he does write some though, instead of subjecting my eyes to things like the ad for his book, which showed several of his nudes. :-/
I didnt notice if Steve Anchell wrote any articles for the two issues I've seen. I hope he does write some though, instead of subjecting my eyes to things like the ad for his book, which showed several of his nudes. :-/
Mark: Calm down. Most photo mags these days show a decidedly 'anti-silver' bias, and you know that's true, but you're not jumping around about it because accusing a magazine of digital/film bias only works one way: If the magazine praises digital to the point of outright plagiarism of scarcely believable press releases, it's called "cutting edge." If any film user criticizes this, he's automatically insane, a dinosaur, a liar, and if that doesn't work, a curmudgeon (even if he's right). But, if a digital person criticizes a magazine for devoting too much space to film and darkroom, that critic is publicly hailed as a "progressive" voice for artistic freedom, tilting at the windmills of Luddite-style editorial oppression (even if he's wrong). Good God, what tripe. Can't we have one magazine for those of us who like traditional photography? It's becoming heresy to A)be unhappy with the quality of digital B) not spend even more money in ten months in hopes of overcoming it C) take pleasure in anything not computer-related D) dare suggest there's any merit to such a "burdensome, antiquated" process as darkroom work, and that it could be aesthetic and psychological as well as quality-related. Of course, to do the latter, you have to accept that something other than money and popular approval is important. . .
MARK: I'm so sorry!!!!!! I should have read your post more carefully! Yikes, just shows how my temper gets flared up having to defend my sheet film all the time( I'm sorry my friend, for being an a**.
Blushingly, Josh
Dear Josh, It is refreshing to see such passionate support for traditional wet photography. The digital explosion reminds me of Muzak, but nothing will ever replace Bach played on a Stradivarius. No digital technology will replace or improve on the work of the photographic giants whose images have long inspired us. Sheet film and silver gelatin prints have left us with the same legacy that the great violin makers (Amati, Guarneri, Stradivarius) did. I am forced to listen to these great instruments on compact discs, but I can still attend live recitals. Likewise, I could scan and display some of my platinum prints on a web site, but I would far rather offer live exhibits. And I feel only pity for those who look at a 16X20 platinum print and say that it can be done just as well and more easily and cheaply on the same paper using Photoshop and an inkjet printer. It's Bach versus the Back Street Boys... I applaud Photovision for having the class to ignore the morass of digital mediocrity. Regards from Toronto, Mark Nowaczynski
Well said, Mark! Wish I could attend more live recitals :-) Thanks all for the info and comments. -- GGC
Goooooooooooo Joshhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! You were just gettin warmed up! I've been wanting to yell something like that for a long time. I feel better already
Thanks for mentioning this. I just picked up the latest issue, and I like it. I'd like it better if it were on slightly heavier, more opaque paper, but I guess that's how they keep the price down to $4.95, which is noticeably less than other publications in this market.
I also recently picked up the most recent issue of _Contact Sheet_ (no. 110), which has an excellent B&W portfolio of the interiors of old prisons, asylums, and immigration detention centers by Margaret Stratton. Info at www.lightwork.com.
The new site for Photovision Magazine is:
http://www.photovisionmagazine.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks