Lenswork - Ouch!

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I discriminate against those using DSLRs for fine art, simply because I find digital capture inferior to using film, and don't find it a tool for fine art. Digital is fine for reporting, but LensWork is supposed to be about fine art. So, I choose which issue based upon this.

Well Robert, it won't change your opinion that I say this, but you do realize that this exact same argument was used by painters against photographers all the time?

More on topic, Mr Jensen, I think you have done more than an honest job at explaining yourself, and I hope you are not having too much of a bad day because of that. Your business reasoning is sound to me, and some people will always want to have everything free, on top of being paid for having it. I must admit I haven't been much into Lenswork lately, but when I find something there that I like, I really like it.

[MP_Wayne]

But my opinion aside, I don't frequent the bookstore reading chairs much anymore due to the constant cell phone conversations taking place all around.

At the Canadian equivalent of Barnes & Noble, Chapters Indigo Books, they took out their nice leather couches for browsers a couple of years back. Seems there were just too many folks doing the horizontal mamba on those nice couches (particularly the ones in the back corner). True story...

Now there are a select few hard ash single chairs here and there to discourage squatting patrons...

[MP_Wayne]

... I'm curious why so many are complaining about Lenswork publishing too much digital work. I thought the issue was the images. ... But since Ms. Myers has a great "eye", I also love her digital work on Antarctica, some of which was recently published in Lenswork. Should I like her work less because in Antarctica she used a DSLR and an MF panoramic?

Hear hear! I too enjoyed those Antarctic images immensely - I did not give a whit as to how they had been derived. They were compelling and I thank both the artist and Brooks for bringing them to me in such a high quality manner. Keep up the great work...

[rusty71]

Well. I used to subscribe to Lenswork. Sometimes I still buy an issue from the newstand. But I simply can't afford it, and will be less able to do so now. Perhaps it's just personal taste, but I look at many of the portfolios and see a particular kind of redundancy. A sort of pre-occupation with the beauty of texture and surface, but little depth of emotion in the images.
But there is a place where I can view thousands of images which suit my proletariat tastes.....

We got a long lecture about "market forces." Certainly that is a huge factor. We also hear a lot of people talk about the importance of equipment used. It is usually not a factor to me, but let's be realistic. Would Diane Arbus have been able to take the same kind of portraits without using a TLR? perhaps. But perhaps not. That wasn't the only factor in her ability, but it surely figured into the mix.
This little thing we're using here; it's called the web. It has for better or worse brought market forces to bear on the printed media. Magazines and newspapers of all sorts are drying up. There are lots of photo oriented websites like Flickr where liked minded people can share and discuss their images. I take offense at Brooks assumption that abandoned places are "easy" to photograph. Yeah, sneaking into a decrepit quarry in -10 weather so I could avoid the watchman was "Easy" allright.

I say the market has spoken. Publications like Lenswork are headed for the dustbin. It's sad because much of the work I enjoy, and in particular Bill Jay's wonderful observations. But the future of photo publication is alive and well online. It may not always be Fine Art, but there is a lot of well thought out photography and fresh ideas. No one is playing "Art Cop" and we can all have fun without taking ourselves too seriously. In the end, hasn't that always been the appeal of art and photography?

[bjorke]

If I'm not permitted to publish my own work, who would?

Brooks, no need to apologize.

Next time this comes up, you might want to cite some other examples, who are much-lauded on APUG:

Ralph Gibson, who founded Lustrum Press to print his books but also printed many others, including people like Larry Clark or the SX-70 book or the often-cited-on-APUG "Darkroom" duet.

Alexei Brodovitch, who not only mentored Avedon and Hiro and designed books for the likes of Kertesz but also used his skills and connections to publish his rare and beautiful BALLET.

Ed Burtynsky, who built his Toronto lab business out of a desire to have someone around that he could trust to make magnificent prints -- of HIS pictures.

But more importantly, it's your magazine. Every issue is full of your opinions. In my mind, photos are more opinion than fact, so it only seems entirely natural to me that at some times your opinions come in the form of little gray-patterned rectangles.

--

Holmeses, don't be hatin' on Brooks.

[mabman]

At the Canadian equivalent of Barnes & Noble, Chapters Indigo Books, they took out their nice leather couches for browsers a couple of years back. Seems there were just too many folks doing the horizontal mamba on those nice couches (particularly the ones in the back corner). True story...

Now there are a select few hard ash single chairs here and there to discourage squatting patrons...

I lived in Toronto for a few years, including the period around the amalgamation of Chapters and Indigo, and the eventual Comfy Chair Reductionist period.

What was funny was patrons adapted - people started sitting on the heat registers, in front of fire exit doors, etc. The staff kept telling people they couldn't sit there, but would be happy to get them a folding chair. I took advantage of this on occasion - usually not to read an entire volume, but largely to have an extended look at a new or expensive book before buying (which were largely either not in the library system yet or not at a library conveniently located for me).

But I digress...

[eclarke]

The O.P. was about the newstand price increase of Lenswork. In this thread I promised to subscribe, which I did. This is not a commercial, but I got 1 year of Lenswork magazine and 1 year of Lenswork Extended for $37.00!! Maybe this little bit of info will change some minds, it's a short time offer...Evan Clarke

[clay]

I agree to a point with your observation about the web being the new democratic medium. But does anyone really have time to wade through the millions of pictures on Flickr?

It raises a point about the one advantage that printed magazines still offer a reader: the ability to sift through a lot the available work and cull out the best for us to look at. They act as gatekeepers, in other words. And that seems to be the real contention here. Some people don't like a lot of the Lenswork portfolios. So they basically have a beef with the gatekeeping aspect of the magazine.

Maybe I am too easy to please, but I enjoy looking through the porfolios because it exposes me to work that I might never actively search out on my own. Even if I end up not really liking it, it makes me think about the specific reason that I don't like it. The whole notion that we have some innate right to get only what we want is sort of weird. I chalk it up to the whole solipsist world view that began when Microsoft Windows started the whole 'My computer' menu on its OS. (tongue is in cheek on that last remark)

This little thing we're using here; it's called the web. It has for better or worse brought market forces to bear on the printed media. Magazines and newspapers of all sorts are drying up. There are lots of photo oriented websites like Flickr where liked minded people can share and discuss their images. I take offense at Brooks assumption that abandoned places are "easy" to photograph. Yeah, sneaking into a decrepit quarry in -10 weather so I could avoid the watchman was "Easy" allright.

I say the market has spoken. Publications like Lenswork are headed for the dustbin. It's sad because much of the work I enjoy, and in particular Bill Jay's wonderful observations. But the future of photo publication is alive and well online. It may not always be Fine Art, but there is a lot of well thought out photography and fresh ideas. No one is playing "Art Cop" and we can all have fun without taking ourselves too seriously. In the end, hasn't that always been the appeal of art and photography?

[thebanana]

At the Canadian equivalent of Barnes & Noble, Chapters Indigo Books, they took out their nice leather couches for browsers a couple of years back. Seems there were just too many folks doing the horizontal mamba on those nice couches

Well, the winters up here are long and cold

[roteague]

Well Robert, it won't change your opinion that I say this, but you do realize that this exact same argument was used by painters against photographers all the time?

Sorry, but it is a different argument. As a landscape/nature photographer I have an implicit contract with the viewer that my images have not been falsified (for lack of a better term) in any way. Digital does not provide that safeguard, in fact, it encourages the breaking of it. Secondly, digital is a computer generated process, and as a result is entirely dependent upon the software algorithms to create the final image - an algorithm, under the current technology, is not up to the task (except for computer displayed images, or low resolution prints - like newspapers).