I just got the September issue (published sometime in August, we are really far behind here) where they have switched to the "new format" and I must say that I am thoroughly disappointed: no Printer's Art, no Darkroom Dilemmas and to sum up the second half of a feature on "Getting exposure right every time", if you are using film, make sure you have the right ISO dialed in. While I understand they are trying to walk a fine line between digital and film, the magazine has seemed to taken a distinctly digital turn (4 ways to convert to mono); even the font and headings has changed to almost mirror a number of the other photographic magazines which are 99% digital. Add in the number of advertising features which were meant to look like articles (same heading, same font, same layout) and I am starting to question my monthly purchase. I'll give it another month or two but unless there is more quality articles and interviews (as opposed to recycled quantity), I will find another magazine to buy.
if you are using film, make sure you have the right ISO dialed in.
I'm fairly sure there was more to that article than that, the stuff about digital can equally apply to film because you're using similar meters that can get fooled by deep shadows and bright highlights.
Thanks for the update, Trever Crone; I'll keep an eye out for the December issue (I was looking at the November one - just glancing through in the shop). The lull before the storm of good articles in time for Christmas I hope
I've been trying to keep quiet on this topic for the past couple of months, but I'm afraid that the so-called "lens review" by Frances Schultz is about the last straw. While this seems at first glance to be a comparison of the Leica Tr-Elmar against the Zeiss Distagon 18mm, it is actually nothing more than 1/4 page of Frances saying that she likes the 18mm focal length!
Er, would that be the article that Frances has written about why it is that she chooses to use a wide angle lens and the reason why she prefers the 18mm. If there is a reference to this article being a "lens review" then I'm sorry, but I can't find it. Yes it comes under tests and products in the contents list, but then, isn't this lens a product?...And personallyI found the article quite informative.
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus! Give the mag a break. It, in my opinion, is still the best mag on the rack (though I get mine delivered) As far as the digital content of the magazine goes, yes, of course it plays a bigger part in the content of the magazine (though not in this issue), but then, it now plays a bigger part in the photographic world. Shouldn't photography be about the image and not the tools it was made with. I mean, after all, the magazine is called 'Black and White Photography' Its never been called 'Black and white Film Photography' For any one who did not, or who has not yet read the comments of Elizabeth Roberts in this months welcome note of the magazine, I have included them below, and I quote:
Quote:
"Digital has opened up a whole new world to photographers who previously weren't blessed with a darkroom or the knowledge of how to process and print black and white. Now, the purist in me baulks at 'going down the easy route' but if it opens up the beauty of black and white to those who would never have experienced it, all I can say is, that's great."
Here, here Elizabeth. I am with you all the way on that one.
Congratulations to David Chow (davec101), who's Portfolio can be seen gracing the pages, eight in all, of the December issue of B&W magazine. Very well done.
Also well done to Sandeha Lynch who makes what I believe is his debue in the "Printers Art" along with Leon Taylor.
The winners are also anounced of the B&W Photographer of the Year competition. Wonderful, wonderful work. The Judges have got it spot on this year. My favourite has to be the portrait by Mick Ryan, which has been used for the front cover. Stunning!
I feel a mention should also go to Michael Copsey, who is the winner of the "Readers Assignment" Very nice work indeed.
If there is a reference to this article being a "lens review" then I'm sorry, but I can't find it.
Stoo, it is right there at the very top of the page above the title "Taking the wider view" and I'd couple it with the Contents page description of "Frances Schultz examines the Zeiss Distagon and Leica wide angle lenses."
Was I entitled to expect an informed comparison of these 2 lenses? Perhaps something on vignetting or distortion? Well, I thought so, but maybe I had expected too much and I readily accept that this may be my own fault. I've a Nikon 18-35 and am familiar with the focal length, but would be interested in knowing what these 2 lenses might offer me on my M3. Realistically I was only interested in the Zeiss as I could never afford the Leica lens, but it would have been nice to have some more info on performance.
As an aside, I'm not one of those who moan about the digital content as I also work in digital, but I do have a thing about equipment reviews that lack information!
I was quite disappointed with the 'howto' article about cyanotypes which started and finished with the digital method and even used the 'nasty dangerous chemicals' argument against the traditional method.
Sure, potassium ferrocyanide may be worse than most of the chemicals we use in the darkroom, but this was the first time I perceived a direct attack (yeah, a bit of a strong word, but couldn't find something more appropriate) on traditional method from that magazine.
I'm in agreement that the pictures are great to look at regardless of provenance but that comment made me wonder about editorial for the first time. Hope it's misplaced.
I hope you are wrong ITD. I am now perhaps super sensitive to such a trend as you describe. AP started this trend in at first a small way then it grew until now it seems to take almost every opportunity it can to " have a dig" at analogue. Most recently it was an article on a wildlife photog in the Artice shooting polar bears who had made the shift to digi. Fair enough, many widlifers have made the transition but it seemed to go out of its way to talk about fellow film photogs having their film tear at the low temps while the digi photog had no problems with his memory card or batteries and even found that low temps had a beneficial effect on noise. No scientific evidence furnished of course. Usually it devotes one issue a year to B&W. 4 years ago it was largely about analogue B&W while it of course covered digi then as was right and proper for a photography magazine. I think it was last year that it covered B&W again and there wasn't even as much of a mention that it was possible to do things in B&W with film and a darkroom.
Yes I have gone on a bit about another magazine which you could say was irrelevant to B&W and I look forward to admitting that it was all irrelevant and shame on me for seeing a trend that isn't and wasn't there. I hope so.
Linear Mode
