What you may see, if the shot was made on Polaroid's P/N film, is the film displaying some edge marking that sorta look like little circles. It is sorta hard to explain but it is where the film and the paper print are touching and it leaves a mark or marks on the film edges. There are advocates that print the whole negative and leave the marks as part of the image. I think it is supposed to tell the viewer that, "this is an uncropped image and this is the way I saw it and this is the way I shot it". I have mixed opinions about this practice.
I wonder if a photographer has any control over how the work is presented once it is sold to a magazine...[/quote]
In the 10 years that I've been writing for magazines I've had many arguments with designers who say their job is to make the best use of the space available and I've generally found that they have little sympathy for the photographers ideas or images. I've had landscape format images cropped to upright simply to fit the space the designer had left on the page, ruining the image in the process. I'm not sucking up to Ailsa but I've never had any issues with the way in which my images have been shown in Black and White Photography. Perhaps you would like to comment Ailsa, not on my images, but the editors position on a potentially emotive subject.
My experience with book publishers has also been fraught with problems on printing across gutters, bleeding off the edge of the page, having text across the image and key lines, for I hate them all. My current book very nearly did not make it to press because of the issues I mentioned. It was not until I said that I would cancel the contract that the issue was resolved in my favour.
Thanks Lee, That must be what was used. It just seemed a bit odd to use.
Originally Posted by lee
Les, it is too bad the photographer and magazine layout designers can't work together or at least allow the photographer to see a rough copy for correction. (especially when it is your own book) .
It reminds me of a Beethoven score (9th symphony) that was auctioned off for $4M recently. It was from his copyist and it contained the composer's own handwritten revisions and notes some raging about the errors. He wrote in one section "du verfluchter Kerl!" ("you damned fool!"), apparently for an error.
So I guess these problems have been going on for a while....
Yeah, but with Beethoven, every complaint fell on deaf ears....
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
Originally Posted by Robert Kennedy
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Perhaps you would like to comment Ailsa, not on my images, but the editors position on a potentially emotive subject.
I think my standpoint on this probably differs from 99% of other magazine editors, because Outdoor Photography, Travel Photography and Black & White Photography are all photography magazines, not magazines that use photography. As such, photographers, and readers (who, to me, are both the same thing, of course), want to see the picture being treated with respect, which means reproducing it as closely as possible to how the photographer saw it.
I try to avoid tampering with the photograph as little as possible, but sometimes it's unavoidable. For example, often the designer has to crop a picture in order to use it on the front cover. Sometimes this means only shaving a little off the sides or top/bottom to fit the A4 aspect ratio. At other times it might mean cropping from a horizontal to a vertical, but this is only ever done with the permission of the photographer, and if this is the case I always try to reproduce the photograph in its entirety elsewhere in the magazine.
For general use inside the magazine, if I feel a picture needs cropping to be 'improved', I'd prefer to use an alternative.
As for running pictures across the gutter, I've had a handful of letters over the years from readers asking me not to do this. Although I understand their point, it's something I only do if the photograph suits such a treatment (ie, there should be enough 'empty' space for the gutter to run down, so it doesn't interrupt the eye as it scans across the page). If I didn't print pictures across the gutter, the largest size I'd be able to use a landscape format photograph would be half a page, which would be a shame - and would make the magazine look a bit 'samey' throughout.
Very occasionally I will allow the designer to place a caption on a picture, but I try to restrict this to technique features rather than the 'big picture' features such as interviews and reportages.
As a magazine editor you have to balance design with content. If the magazine looked like crap, nobody would buy it, so you do need to be led by design to a degree - I refuse to be dictated by it, however.
As for borders around a print - if the photographer has printed their image that way, then that's how I'll reproduce it. If they haven't, then I would never in a million years add anything created in Photoshop! Vile![/i]
After reading this, it is no wonder that Black and White Photography is such an *outstanding* magazine.
Originally Posted by Ailsa
It is as close as it is is possible to be to the late, and terribly lamented, "Camera and Darkroom"; and that is intended to be far more than "faint praise".
Ed Sukach, FFP.
It is great that you treat images of (other) photographers with such respect. It shows in your magazine!
I've contributed to Black and White Photography almost from issue 1 and cannot speak highly enough of how Ailsa and her staff go about putting the magazine together. What Ailsa didn't say was that they have to meet deadlines with printer and distribution etc despite the fact that contributors, me, regularly hand in articles two or three days after the deadline putting more preasure on Ailsa and the team.
Ailsa is also always ready to listen to ideas for articles and features and is willing to give the contributor freedom, I can tell you that is not always the case with many of the photo mags around these days. I agree with Ed that Black and White Photography is the nearest magazine we have to the sadly missed Camera and Darkroom and long may it reign.
Here, here Ed. Ailsa has a great product with an attitude that will create a consequential legacy for the publication. The potential for 'Black & White Photography' has yet to be realised in my opinion.