Quote Originally Posted by David Brown View Post
I

One thing I did notice about this issue, and another poster has mentioned it: I didn't think the reproduction in this issue was up to the usual standards.
I've been disappointed with B&W's reproduction quality for years. I'm happy to see the images, but, especially with the standard that LensWork sets, B&W doesn't fare very well at all. (Of course, LensWork is expensive and offers far fewer images in the print version of the magazine.)

I think I read that the editor only accepts images on CD, because the volume of actual prints in their first contest was so great that they were overwhelmed. As a consequence, the images are subject not only to being changed to gray scale from color (as in so many cases they have been), but also to the vagueries of scanning skill and equipment from those who submit. Hence, some are oversharpened and some are much softer than they probably are in reality. I've noticed that many of the folks whose work is accepted do not have websites which may indicate that their digital acumen is limited. I understand Rasmussen's dilemma, but the results suffer as a consequence.