Jeff was the second photographer I ever contacted about Inked...through the hiccups of the launch, he always stood by and offered his support. Some people may hate his work, others will love it. Being able to have such diverse opinions officially labels Inked as an "art magazine!" I've gone back to the MoMA in NYC at least three times and I still can't understand Andy Warhol and don't really know how it's considered "art." My girlfriend absolutely loves him and yells at me if I even say anything negative about him. That's what a true art magazine is about...and I'm glad I could accomplish such a feet in so small of a time! Look at a magazine full of Edward Weston and Ansel Adams and you'll find the same old f/64 stuff...nothing "new" nothing "original"...Thomas Barbey and Jeff Alu both offer a new look into black and white photography. That was the intention in the second issue.
Originally Posted by jovo
I am going to thank David for persevering - it seems to me that if you are 26, and can take as much criticism as he does here, in 20 years he might make a good APUG photographer
More seriously, I can't see where his obvious attempts at self-promotion here can possibly help him, unless his efforts at building an interesting and informative and thought-provoking magazine (which I think he wants to do) result in a product that will be enjoyed and appreciated by those who appreciate this website.
Stieglitz, he isn't, but he may very well be able to promote and support photographers whose vision we do appreciate now, or will appreciate in the future.
If some of those photographers are digitally oriented, so be it. Our environment is not polluted by those who use digital media, but rather by those (including magazine publishers) who exclude or denigate or minimalize the clear benefits of the analogue or traditional. The question is, does David and his magazine promote and foster and encourage analogue photography? If so, I think he and his magazine should be encouraged here.
If David appreciates analogue photography and publishes a magazine, and as a result more people learn to love and decide to collect great analogue photography, then he is performing a valuable service to us all, whether or not he can make a decent print, or develop a usable negative.
I would encourage him to learn more, because there is joy and satisfaction and useful perspective that results, and I think his magazine will benefit, but it is quite possible that his enthusiasm for the final result will (after a lot of hard work, and good fortune) result in a magazine that many of us will appreciate, and a wider appreciation for the processes that we value.
I would also encourage him to learn to use a manual camera, and learn how to develop film, and learn how to develop quality negatives, and make beautiful prints, because if he does so, he will have most likely developed much higher levels of tolerance for frustration, and much greater levels of patience, along with greater appreciation for the benefits of quiet contemplation - clearly attributes that will aid him greatly when dealing with the discourse here. :rolleyes:
I don't have the knowledge to shoot 11x14 (although I own and have read Ansel Adams' "The Camera" and "The Negative" and "The Print" many times and have longed to experience the joys of LF). My knowledge and experience is limited to MF and 35mm and colour and B&W darkroom work. Does this mean that I should be prevented from reading the posts in the LF and ULF or alternative processes or camera modification or other forums here? Does the fact that my darkroom equipment has been in storage for too many years mean that I shoudn't be allowed to comment about fine examples of printing or developing? Does the fact that I am struggling with an attempt to obtain a scanner that does a satisfactory job of dealing with my MF slides and negatives, mean I should be prevented from posting photographs, from film, on this website?
I know that I don't have the knowledge or skill to publish a magazine, and I don't have the gift that might result in it selling successfully, but I do have the ability to appreciate a good magazine.
To the best of my knowledge, there is only one other publisher of a magazine (Emulsion) who is interested in participating here. Why not encourage as many as possible, as long as film based photography is supported and encouraged therein?
David's comments are such that criticism here is almost inevitable. He seems to be happy to expose himself to that criticism. If he can take it, I think he should be encouraged to learn from it.
I'll go out on a limb - David, do you send your magazine to subscribers in Canada? If so, what are the arrangements and costs? If I get a chance to see it, will you be willing to hear my comments/criticisms/compliments, knowing that I have been taking pictures and loving film based photography since I was 8 years old, more than 40 years ago?
I don't have a problem with digital photography, but this isn't photography. It is "photoshoping". He starts with an uninteresting color image, manipulates it in photoshop to be an uninteresting black and white image. The work is all done in the computer - we used to call that "graphics arts", not "photography".
Originally Posted by MattKing
No it does not, but I dont think this is the question. IMO the question is do we want every magazine editor hawking his or her rag here, troll for subscriptions and clutter the forum with inane posts? As I said, Simmons got a lot of heat from many of us, this kid is not different.
The question is, does David and his magazine promote and foster and encourage analogue photography? If so, I think he and his magazine should be encouraged here
Once again this guy managed to steer the topic to his magazine. Isnt it enough already?
I might be naive, but I find it rather unfair that Simmons was burned at the stake for his incessant advertisement and here this guy just waltzes in here and starts talking about his rag any time he wants.
OTOH if the owner and moderators are fine with this, who am I to bitch...right?
I'm not really sure if all the talk here has generated any sales for David as I could not find the mag even here in Ct.; which is only one state away from NYC.
I did procure a copy in NYC this week and the magazine is quite nice. I for one welcome any and all comers to the world of publishing. I did notice that Michael and Paula Smith were willing to take out ads in the magazine as well as Doug Beasley who does workshops and whose work is quite nice. Sponsorship on APUG would be a better idea or is that forbidden because he shows some digitalwork?
I say check it out for yourself then decide.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Who is Paula Smith? I know a Paula Chamlee--in fact, I am married to her.
Michael! I didn't know you were monitoring these threads. Welcome!
Originally Posted by Michael A. Smith
I will state here and now that the rumor tha Paula Smith is marreid to Michael Chamblee is a complete falsehood.
Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)
You mean, I can actually get something in Hawaii that you can't get on the East Coast. Now that is funny. I found Inked at two different bookstores on Friday; Barnes & Nobles and Borders.
Originally Posted by peters