| |
 | | 
10-29-2007, 09:59 PM
|
#11 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 251
| So long as the quality is there I will probably still pick it up, along with Aperture and Blindspot. | 
|     | |
10-29-2007, 10:08 PM
|
#12 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,392
| I don't subscribe to it because of the digital images. I might be more receptive if they put the digital images in the back or a tear out bunch. I also think that they could put a 80/20 50/50 95/5 kind of indicator so I can tell how much content is real or digital.
Really though, I just tossed out years and years of old popular and modern photograph magazines. Why keep the ones you don't want just to be collecting them? | 
| | |
10-30-2007, 01:07 AM
|
#13 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia
Posts: 878
| I have to say that I am really impressed with Silvershotz magazine. They are almost exclusively analogue-only and have had several alt-process how-to series including one on carbon printing written by Sandy King. The printing seems to be of good quality. The only downside is that it is about $10 CDN for a fairly thin magazine, but the quality and content are good enough that I am usually willing to fork it out when I like the issue and am seriously thinking of subscribing.
__________________
I'm so good at loading film holders that I can do it in the dark with my eyes closed! :D
"This is probably the most radioactive weasel in collections anywhere..." - Dr. Ron Chesser, on a specimen trapped in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone
| |
| | |
10-30-2007, 01:23 AM
|
#14 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 66
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Curt  I don't subscribe to it because of the digital images. I might be more receptive if they put the digital images in the back or a tear out bunch. I also think that they could put a 80/20 50/50 95/5 kind of indicator so I can tell how much content is real or digital.
Really though, I just tossed out years and years of old popular and modern photograph magazines. Why keep the ones you don't want just to be collecting them? | If you need an indicator so you know what is film and what is digital what does that tell you? | |
| | |
10-30-2007, 03:59 AM
|
#15 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,200
| Digital or no digital I will keep my subscription. I find Brooks' editorials stimulating (even when I don't agree with him), the interviews are usually interesting, and there's always at least one portfolio that speaks to me. It's beautifully printed and my shelf of back issues serves to remind me how diverse and uplifting photography can be if we only open our eyes to it. | |
| | Sponsored Ad. ( Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.) | |  | |
10-30-2007, 09:48 AM
|
#16 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 3,392
| For me the process matters, that's why I have a darkroom, use film, chemicals, and photographic paper. When Ansel Adams said that someone could make an image from one of his negatives in the future in an entirely new way or process, that was fine with him, he wouldn't necessarily like it but that was their business.
Images in printed materials can be from differing mediums but when I buy a "Photography" book or magazine it's because I am looking for work created in the old fashion wet darkroom manner. That's my preference.
Curt | |
| | |
10-30-2007, 10:00 AM
|
#17 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,200
| The process matters to me too. That's why I also have a darkroom, use film, chemicals and photographic paper.
But I also want to experience the richest range of inspiring visual art as possible - partly to keep my creativity fresh and partly purely for pleasure. That's why I look at (and enjoy looking at) paintings, drawings, sculpture, installations, books, and yes even photographs created and manipulated by electronic means. Of course I have little interest in crappy digital photos that look bad and say nothing, but I haven't seen many of those in LensWork... | |
| | |
10-30-2007, 10:08 AM
|
#18 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,871
| I continue to buy Lenswork. I'm interested in all sorts of photography even if I choose all film for myself.
It's a magazine that is committed to good image making. I don't like all the portfolios (who would?), and I found the inclusion of one of Brook Jensen's portfolios annoying, but it's worth getting through the stuff you don't like to find some gems that can inspire.
Admittedly, at almost 13 bucks at the newsstand, it may be worth subscribing soon! | |
| | |
10-30-2007, 10:08 AM
|
#19 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,265
| I gave up on Lenswork some time ago because of the high price and the digital emphasis. I don't even flip through it on the news stand anymore.
__________________
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]
| |
| | |
10-30-2007, 10:29 AM
|
#20 (permalink)
|
Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Michigan
Posts: 837
| I also started with Lenswork because of traditional photography and recently let my suscription expire because of the lack of traditional work. If digital is what he wants to publish, that's fine. I'll just look for something that else that I like.
Jerry | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | | |
