BRAVO!!! Jorge. Well said. If any new publication has a chance of succeeding it will be *BECAUSE* it is different, not in spite of it.Originally Posted by Jorge
I read the editorial in Photovision.
Recapping ... An offer was made to send a sample issue to the "first 100 who requested it. Thirty-four (did I get that number right? - or somewhere around there -) responded. I am not sure what you should use for a "base" - either the `720 members of APUG, or 100. Either way, that is a *very* respectable rate of return - showing definte interest. "Somewhat less than that" subscribed."
Am I mistaken, or is that not a *very* successful advertising campaign/ market temperature survey? If the PV Board of Directors - or whoever - did not think that indicated an intense interest and accepatance of the magazine, just what would have met their idea of "success"? Would it be ALL 720 APUG subscribers clamoring for an "unseen" freebie issue, with 100% subscriptions as a result?
Anchell, in his edtorial, stated that Photovision was dedicated to the "Technique and Art of Fine Photography, with the emphasis on Art". IMHO, that is an excellent formula. I am not at all aganst the D****** practioners of photography per se, but if the inclusion of D*.. also changes the underlying philosophy of the magazine to, "NEW!!! NEW!!! - You GOTTA have..." and "This is How Any Dumb-assed Dolt Can Cheat His Way Into the Upper Echelons of Fine Photographers by Using Photoshop" - in essence, following the "Lead Lemming" - I think that would be a horrendously terrible mistake.
His resignation in the face of all that would make perfect sense to me.