What's the deal with Outdoor Photographer magazine?

[copake_ham]

I'm not sure that is true. Realistically, we are more likely to die than they are. I hope there are enough film based, or "silver based" photographers left to sustain a market that can adapt to these market changes.

Actually, my point is simply that in a digital world - the old "loyalties" no longer apply.

The "old school" mags are in a mad dash to survive against a plethora of "digital imaging" newbies. Do you think a 20-something with a 10mp pocket digi P&S who like "photography" and is looking for a "photo mag" knows enough to give a rat's butt about which of the many choices have been around for more that an issue or two?

Go to the magazine rack at your nearest Borders or B&N. Try to find PopPhoto, for example. It will be there - but it will be just one of many digital imaging mags (BTW: when you go there - take a look at the PopPhoto cover and note the name change).

If photo magazines lasted forever - we'd all still be getting "Life" or "Look" every week!

[rusty71]

Honestly, even before digital most of those magazines turned to crap. Nothing but camera reviews and ads. As if that made one a better photographer!
As noted, some of the UK magazines have a good mix of film and digital. The thing is, once you sell a newbie a digicam, he thinks he's a photographer for 6 months. Then a new video game system comes out and the camera goes in the sock drawer. These rags depend upon a constant influx of newbies every 6-12 months to survive. But they'll get their come uppence; just look at sales of digi point and shoots. If you recall, back in the 90's those same crummy magazines ran review after review of cheap 35mm point and shoots. Those all ended up in the sock drawer too.

[crispinuk]

I got quite confused when I started reading this thread, until I realised it was referring to the USA Outdoor Photographer rather than the the UK Outdoor Photography. I can back up Mr Teague and recommend the UK OP ( I must declare my vested interest as they used one of my pictures for the "opening shot" this month )
Magazines will always reflect the current fads and fashions, and some will be quick to jump on the bandwagon if there's profit to be made (I once saw a 'digital compatible lens cloth' but that's another story). OP (UK) and its sister mag B&W Photography seem to have their heads screwed on and have a sensible balance between film and d1g1t4l. I did a quick tally and of the 12 pictures in the "here comes summer" feature 11 were taken on film (mostly Velvia unsurprisingly). I think what really sets it apart from other (UK) magazines though are the travelogue/photojournalism type articles.
As mentioned by Highpeak the articles are only as good as the contributors. Preaching to the converted in a niche corner of the internet may make us feel better, but contributing pro-film articles (or even just film photographs if, like me, you ain't much of a writer) might make a difference.

Cheers,
Crispin, in the UK.

[Roger Hicks]

Honestly, even before digital most of those magazines turned to crap. Nothing but camera reviews and ads. As if that made one a better photographer!

Remember that there are two reasons to run a magazine. One is to talk about the subject, and the other is to sell advertising space. Quite a few magazines seem to forget the first.

It's also surprising, but true, that many people really like to read camera tests, and that they can sell magazines. I'm not sure why, but I've seen enough evidence of it in enough magazines -- ones that Frances and I write for as well as others -- that I can't deny it.

Not a lot makes you a better photographer, except taking pictures, but for many, magazines are a substitute for this (as APUG can be too). Yesterday I took quite a lot of pictures, using a Graflex 22 and an M8. Today: well, I've not been up long yet...

[jovo]

... ones that Frances and I write for as well as others....

Even though Shutterbug isn't a magazine I ever spend much time with, when I have, I usually read the editor's column first. He has been generally fair and reasonable about film and digital....acknowledging the realities that exist, but not being dismissive about traditional materials. As Roger and Frances are contributors there writing about analog things, Shutterbug clearly maintains that commitment with column inches even though it's a magazine that seems highly advertisement driven. As a consequence, OP's hypocrisy (ignoring film while featuring images made with it) rankles more than a little bit.

[roteague]

Remember that there are two reasons to run a magazine. One is to talk about the subject, and the other is to sell advertising space. Quite a few magazines seem to forget the first.

I would normally agree with you, but the people that run Outdoor Photographer (US) have made pretty clear their preference for digital. You can find any number of books on the shelves by Rob Sheppard and George Lepp. I wouldn't expect to see anything else from them (including biased articles expousing the superiority of digital over film - which is on their web site currently).

OP is trash.

[roteague]

( I must declare my vested interest as they used one of my pictures for the "opening shot" this month )

Crispin,

I haven't seen the current issue yet; the latest issue I've seen yet is the May 2007 issue (we are always about two months behind here). I love Outdoor Photography, as a magazine. I can't get over how stunningly beautiful the UK is, and I love the non-bias the magazine has towards film or digital.

[rusty71]

I'm not against camera or lens tests, If they're done with real world subjects, and in real lighting situations. The only US mags I still subscribe to are Shutterbug and American Photo. I used to get Lenswork, but the price is too steep right now. I do occasionally pick up the UK mag B&W Photography, which does have a great balance. They did an article on analog vs digital printing recently. They sent a negative to a digital guy to output, and then did a analog print in the good old darkroom. It was great because both produced very good, but very different prints. In the end they concluded the darkroom print looked better, not because it had more tones, but because it had starker shadows. But really it was a toss up. You'd never see a US magazine do something that fair. Maybe it's something about the U.S. mentality. "All or Nothing" seems to be the mindset today.

[FilmSprocket]

After reading as much of the August '07 issue of "Outdoor Photographer" (U.S.) as I could stand, I promptly e-mailed OP and cancelled my subscription. I've been meaning to do this for the last several months, but this latest issue was the final straw for all the reasons the previous messages to this thread covered. "Popular Photography", or whatever they call themselves now, I cancelled a while back, as I did with "Shutterbug". I get much, much more useful photographic information from APUG than any of those catalogs,...I mean, magazines.

Regarding "Shutterbug", I have enjoyed Roger Hicks' & Frances Schultz's articles as well as Robert E. Mayer's work, but, when the editor of the magazine spends most of a page talking about "The Year D _ _ _ _ _ _ Took Over" (July '07), which is an editorial based on some kind of "truthiness" about 2007 marking the first time that more prints will be made from d _ _ _ _ _ _ than analog sources, that's when it's time for me just turn around and walk away. I mean,...what the hell?! Based on this "truthiness", he then asks us to "...mark 2007 as the year the industry officially declared that d _ _ _ _ _ _ took over." So now this useless 'truthiness' is legitimate enough to call it official? It seems to me that only insecure d _ _ _ _ _ _ image makers would want to keep track of information this fallow.

Anyway, it is nice to have an actual magazine to read once in a while, so "LensWork", "View Camera", "Silvershotz" and "Focus" magazines are what I get.

I guess I vented a little bit there. Sorry.

Marc

[dferrie]

I got quite confused when I started reading this thread, until I realised it was referring to the USA Outdoor Photographer rather than the the UK Outdoor Photography. I can back up Mr Teague and recommend the UK OP ( I must declare my vested interest as they used one of my pictures for the "opening shot" this month )

Preaching to the converted in a niche corner of the internet may make us feel better, but contributing pro-film articles (or even just film photographs if, like me, you ain't much of a writer) might make a difference.

Crispin,

Congratulations on featuring on OP, I actually had the magazine in my hand yesterday and did like the opening shots. I ended up not buying the magazine as I got distracted by some books I had to get, now that I "know" one of the featured photographers I'll have to back and buy it. I think you have a good point about us contributing images to these magazines. In the USA/UK you have a wide selection of titles available (we get most of the UK titles in Ireland) but in Ireland we have no locally published title and only on the very rare occasion is Ireland featured in UK mags and considering it's such a short hop to get to Ireland (with really cheap flights) it would be nice to see Ireland featured more often, so maybe it's time that some of us Irish APUGers starting submitting work to the UK titles to raise our profile and what Ireland has to offer photographers!

David