Lenswork - Ouch!

[Curt]

I just go to Borders and read (all of) them in the cafe. Did you read the article in Focus about how b&w is starting to make a minor come back in the fine art world! Is this guy an idiot?
__________________

They actually encourage the preview with a Latte. They figure what ever gets you to stay and buy a drink. I don't do it but I see people using the book store like a library. I saw the latest Lenswork but passed on it, and not because of the price.

[Black Dog]

That reminds me, I must send some work in myself (especially as I have a few free months to spend in the darkroom).

[Ole]

Originally Posted by Art Soft

The new newstand price for Lenswork will be $12.95 starting in Jan '08. Ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuchhh!
Will you still buy it, or will you finally break down and subscribe?

Does this mean it will get cheaper, to those of us in the rest of the world?

[michael9793]

i get lenswork extended and that is nice because you get tours of darkrooms and interviews along with podcast and seeing extended portfolios. I like that much better than the mag. and you are right all you see is canon and nikkon digital cameras everywhere in the book. though some of the work i have seen you had to do 35mm and digital has replaced that as far a journalism or anything of that sort at this time.

mike

[Dave Miller]

Originally Posted by Ole

Does this mean it will get cheaper, to those of us in the rest of the world?

It does, especially if you take out a three year subscription.

[roteague]

Originally Posted by Dave Miller

It does, especially if you take out a three year subscription.

The way the US dollar is tanking these days .... I would take advantage. Even the Aussie dollar is almost at par.

[jovo]

Originally Posted by lenswork

Magazines typically do everything they can to pump up their numbers simply so they can charge more from their advertisers, regardless of the impact on the quality of the magazine, waste of resources, or insanity of the system. We simply refuse to play this silly game.

*** *** *** *** *** ***

We think this entire scenario is just silly. We've always operated on a different principle. Since day one, we've said that LensWork will survive (or not) based on the quality of the publication. Period. No games, no advertising hokum, no phony distribution numbers, no compromise in printing quality.

Which begs the question relating to the thread about the UK Black and White Photography: to what degree do these considerations influence its' choices about content? Pleasing advertisers of digitalia (sounds vaguely erotic doesn't it ) would be a rather overwhelming pressure using Brooks's information. David Corfield (and certainly Ailsa as well) has/(had) a tough row to hoe here to keep advertisers happy while still trying to please we of an analog bent.

The other thing that makes me curious is the presumption we make that the editors (who are also the art directors it seems) have the depth and breadth of knowledge to choose the best work from what must be an enormous number of submissions. I've yet to see from Brooks, Henry Rasmussen, David Corfield, or even Ailsa what they bring to the task of making those choices. Some magazines, clearly, have the staff to delegate such responsibilities, but among the few I usually enjoy, I think the final cut rests in the hands of the above named suspects. Obviously, I approve of much of what they choose or I wouldn't bother with their magazines, but it would be nice to have a sense of their credentials nonetheless. What we don't see, of course, is the 'discard' pile. What we also don't know is whether of not there's an editorial nudge toward the makers of digipics over photographs in any or all of these periodicals (and it isn't even possible in LensWork for sure) in order to satisfy advertisers. (The disconnect in Outdoor Photographer (US)) borders on the laughable since there's not one scintilla of editorial content that isn't extolling digigraphia while, nonetheless publishing analog portfolios....how dense does that editor think his readers are? Maybe the answer is: "Very!")

[symmar_man]

Well, Mr. Jensen, as I expected, you have ignored my point totally and turned your point of view into a crying environmental issue in order to position yourself in the roll of a hero by offering subscriptions to save the environment. Shame you are not running for public office, you would make a great politician.

I reiterate, your stand on selling your prints for cheap is to get art out to the public. Why do you not do the same with your magazine? Just because you do not make a living from your print sales, does not mean that others do not. You cheapen the market for everyone else, and make photography look cheap, yet you raise the price of your magazine so you can make a profit. That is my point. You cannot be at both extremes at the same time. Why does your business philosophy differ so much? It is hard to be on both sides of the fence at the same time, at least comfortably.

One other note, I see you haven’t updated your audio blog since Sep 05, 2007. . . I miss the entertainment immensely. And I do appreciate what you do. And I do think your magazine is a quality product. Just remember that quality has little worth without content. I have the greatest respect for you and your endeavors, I just don’t understand why you continuously contradict yourself?

B. Dalton

[Curt]

Just remember that quality has little worth without content.

Well said.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Originally Posted by lenswork

Since day one, we've said that LensWork will survive (or not) based on the quality of the publication. Period. No games, no advertising hokum, no phony distribution numbers, no compromise in printing quality. We stopped taking any outside advertising in 2002. We place our faith in the quality of our publication, the care we put in selecting the content, the efforts we expend in reproducing the images with state-of-the-art printing, and the assumption that there are enough people out there who share our passion in photography to care that a publication like LensWork exists.

I don't care for every portfolio, but there is always one or two that I like, and some of the editorials sound a bit too much like motivational sermonizing, and sometimes Bill Jay's on, and sometimes he's off on a tangent, but the physical artifact that is the magazine is always well produced, and this is why I subscribe and keep back issues of LensWork.