If I remember correctly from my advertising days the certain placings within a magazine attract a premium. Those placed at the rear were quite a bit cheaper than, for example, those inside the front cover, or on the back cover. So it's back to economics.
come on guys, its a magazine, it has to have adverts to keep going, just treat them like telly adverts....make a cup of tea (metaphorically speaking) while you flick past them . who is the real loser here, us because our magazine pages are interspersed with a few ads, or them for shelling out considerable cash for ads we dont read !
That's a fair comment. B&W is a good magazine, all magazines have there up's and downs, that's life. We have a choice of supporting it and helping it continue or being negative and sitting complacently making carping comments.
I only buy 2 magazines regularly (on subscription), one is the oldest photo mag in the world the other is B&W, even when every one was moaning about B&W last year when I finally got my copies I realised there was a lot of over exaggeration yes it wasn't as we'd like but it wasn't that bad either.
Mmmm, now as a subscriber. I get a bit fearful when I remember Liz abandoning the dark room in favour of the light room when Jerry Lebons moved premises and left his darkroom wherein he was teaching said Liz B&W printing.
May be it was expediancy, may be the digi devil got her soul, as a passionate darkroom worker who belives computors are only for forums and emails I fear the digi madness is still with her and as she was unable to finish the course of red light therapy will surface again sooner or later.
I have baught every copy since issue 3, almost stopped under the previous editor, he went just before I wrote the subscription cancelation, and now wait and see if the inprovements continue and the mag returns to the former glory of the early issues. It needs to do it quickly for at the moment I can live without it and it is only hope and habit that keeps me.
Regards Paul.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
It's not the digital articles and advertising that worry me, I've long accepted they were considered necessary by the owners of the magazine. The people that own the magazine want them there, rightly or wrongly it doesn't matter, they want them in there and so its pointless arguing against it.
The quality and relevance of the film related content is what concerns me most and from the last issue [JL on cover] I regret to say I am less than impressed, I felt it was an issue without any real substance or quality. A 10 minute flick through, certainly not what I am used to.
I look forward to the next issue though however, it will be a make or break issue for me.
Magazines have an important place in the photography world. They provide a wide range of information for a wide level of photographic enthusiasts. When you're starting out magazines can be invaluable and important knowledge can be gathered quite readily. When years have past and you are now a sophisticated and experienced photographer there's still much to be learned.
The internet is a great source of information, but the reality is that very little of it has been fact checked. Just look at some of the comments made on threads in APUG and you'll find many conflicting statements, many based on assumption or incorrect information. As an example there was a recent thread regarding safety in bear country. Not trying to single anyone out, but one poster recounted that he heard that some people apply bear spray (pepper spray) to the outside of their tents to keep bears away. In reality they have just covered their tent with a strong food smell and will more than likely attract a bear this way. Now the poster was merely recounting something he heard, he was not endorsing the practice, but often people act on things they read and in this instance the result could be quite serious.
While magazines may not always be right, they are usually far more reliable and take great pains to fact check the information they put out, especially information that has safety consequences. While no one likes advertising it is the price that we pay for the content that we buy the magazine for. And to be honest not all magazine ads are a waste of space or time. We are in a technology driven hobby/business. Occasionally finding an ad about a new product that benefits us is worth it's place in the magazine.
I always read & study the Silverprint and Retrophotographic ones carefully
I am also adult enough to avert my eyes of the Digital stuff when I come across it
There really are not that many adverts in the Mag if you count the pages
I can accept it as a necessary evil to keep the financials in check
We need to be a bit more grown up - or we might just start to sound like the Analogue Taliban
And finally - welcome to APUG Alice - nice to have you aboard - we are not always this grumpy or argumentative but we are very passionate about some things and B&W is one of the things we hold dear to our hearts.
Normally we are all really nice friendly people
The DSLR listing has gone. Personally, I'm pleased to see the back of it. I know that many of you think of me solely as a promoter of digital (I'm not) but, honestly, I'd go elsewhere for this type of info. Yes, I test cameras and equipment when I'm invited to do so - but I always try to give an honest personal impression of how, say, a specific camera feels to use and lists can't tell you that.
Advertising is here to stay. It's universal and it seeps into our every activity. Try watching the Olympics without being forced to seeing an advert, or some kind of sponsorship, it's completely unavoidable. I can see over thirty logos on my desk now. If I look out my window, into the street, I can see more than ten logos, adverts etc etc. I really don't wish to see them but I get no choice in this, it's part of our world and, consequently, I don't think there's a great deal of point complaining about the advertising policy of single magazine - it's not in the editor's hands, it's a publishing issue. Adverts are here to stay and the people who pay for them expect them to intrude - that's why they are there. Unless you want to change a lot of other, far more fundamental, things first - like the capitalist system, for instance - this will never change. Unobtrusive advertising is completely oxymoronic.
I have difficulty understanding the motives of people who complain of lack of "good quality content" because it's an unfair, unanswerable, accusation. It's totally negative. It's like "when did you stop beating your wife?". It's unfair on the hugely dedicated people, like young Alice, who try their best. When you say the content isn't good, it's hits on a very personal level. It's not constructive and it's simply not a nice thing to do. Write about it in a personal letter to your mates, by all means, but don't plaster it in a spot where people may see it and be hurt. You wouldn't like it if someone did it to you.
If you know what 'good content' is, then be positive and submit it to B&W, because the editorial team need as much good content as they can get. Magazines have a voracious appetite for 'good content', their main problem is finding it.
. who is the real loser here, us because our magazine pages are interspersed with a few ads, or them for shelling out considerable cash for ads we dont read !
Linear Mode
