What do you want in a magazine?

[Roger Hicks]

There's an existing thread on mediocrity - so what do you want instead?

It strikes me that writing about equipment is easiest of all. After that, what is there? Aesthetics (very hard to write about, though I made an attempt in 'Body of Work' recently in Shutterbug); ideas for different approaches (cf my recent 'vintage look' and soft focus articles in Shutterbug); inspiration to go out and take pictures, or to make you think about what you shoot and why (which is what I try to do in AP); and finally photographs, which are as hit-or-miss in appeal as articles: if I never see another macro insect shot again it will be soon enough for me, but some people love 'em. Excessive specialization will always frighten off a good percentage of your readers.

What do YOU want to see? And what do you think people could write about, but don't?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Philly]

Aesthetics (very hard to write about, ...)

Hegel had a good go at it.
I'm sure lots of that could be expanded and brought up to date.

 

[Sparrow]

Zoom, is the only one I bother reading but I’m sure it wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste

PS reading’s probably the wrong word, more looking at the pictures there a lot of pretentious twaddle in the text

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hegel had a good go at it.
I'm sure lots of that could be expanded and brought up to date.

I didn't say impossible: just hard. It can also be hard to read. Never mind frightening off the readers: frightening off editors is a risk. But I'll give it a try. (Writing about aesthetics, that is; I'm already pretty good at frightening off editors). Thanks.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Andy Kibber]

What do I want in a magazine? Good writing on interesting topics by someone who is more intelligent and insightful than I am, but doesn't talk down to me. And some interesting pictures. I generally like colour reportage or environmental portraiture, but I try to keep an open mind.

Maybe that's not a very helpful response. 🙂

 

[newspaperguy]

I'd love to see a regular column on classic and antique cameras... yeah, like whathizname did for so many years.

Wouldn't matter if it duplicated the original series if it were done from a new perspective.

Just figure out a way to do it so you don't use up all the "good ones" in the first year...

and use lots of photos of the equipment for us junkies.
(As apposed to photos they took.)

 

[oftheherd]

When I got started back in Photography back in 1974, I read every magazine and book I could get my hands on. Just devoured them all. After a few years, I tired a little about all the new cameras. I had settled on my Fujica ST 901 kit, and a Contax 139Q for a single lens. It was interesting to read about new cameras with new features as I was often asked about what gear to buy. It was also interesting to read about new lenses for the same reason.

I wasn't so interested in newbie articles, because I wasn't, but there continued to be some articles on things I didn't know about, or much about. That was still fun.

I noticed as time went by, there seemed to be fewer articles on pictures and how they were taken. Then even fewer photos seemed to show up and get commented on. For me, that was what I missed most. I stilll enjoy seeing photos and hearing how they were obtained. After all, it is photography.

But then I am not a good person to ask any more. I don't take as many photos as I used to. I have finally gotten a grip on my GAS also. Digital has kind of passed me by. I still enjoy stimulating articles, no matter the subject. FWIW Mr. Hicks, I enjoy your articles in Shutterbug. Even you gear articles make good reading for me at least, but less so (I don't own Leica gear so if its a review of a Leica camera or lens, I lose interest easily).

I don't guess that really helps, but photos, and how they are made, such as attention to light, including time of day, type of film (yeah digital passed me by), how it was developed if different than normal, an unusual piece of not to expensive gear to get the photo, or better yet, how to do it anyway. Challenges I guess.

 

[oftheherd]

I'd love to see a regular column on classic and antique cameras... yeah, like whathizname did for so many years.

Wouldn't matter if it duplicated the original series if it were done from a new perspective.

Just figure out a way to do it so you don't use up all the "good ones" in the first year...

and use lots of photos of the equipment for us junkies.
(As apposed to photos they took.)

That is still often done in Shutterbug. What intrigues me is seeing what to me were new cameras now showing up as classics. 😛

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I would love a magazine that focused on several long interviews with photographers--say, three different kinds of photography per issue, you know, a street photographer, a digital abstract person, a journalist, etc.--that include discussions of the technology they use and how they use it. I'd also love columns about specific cameras, old and new, and other imaging technology--their history, specs, design flaws, and so on.

Basically, I would like a magazine that addressed photography as a creative endeavor tied up with the use of tools. A nerdy mag, for people who love cameras, and love using them even more.

 

[Jim-st]

Gear reviews and Photoshop "tips" are done to death, and only feed one small part of the brain anyway.

The history of the subject is of great interest, I think, hooked on either a theme or a photog. People like Weegee or HCB are almost inexhaustible, and remember there's one born every minute (photographer, that is) and it's not that easy for youngsters to access info on the past of the subject these days. Plus there's probably always someone "new" to be uncovered - Margaret Watkins would be a fairly recent example.

And don't be put off by remarks about "pretentious twaddle" - there's always an interest in the aesthetics (the analysis of what makes a photo grab the eye/ mind) - and it's an opportunity to show of some nice sets of pics!

 

[Ade-oh]

The only 'photography' articles I find remotely interesting these days are those showcasing and discussing - in depth - the work of individual photographers. News and product reviews are available in a much more timely fashion from the internet, used gear from Ebay etc etc.

Photography magazines have their place, but I suspect nowadays it is mostly as a way for beginners to get their heads round basic equipment, techniques and ideas in their own time before plunging into the big, bad world of the 'net.

 

[lawrence]

I assume your talking about a printed magazine. For me the best photographic magazines are about photographs; nowadays you can get all the technical information you need from the internet (this forum being a prime example).

Like others, I went through a phase when I devoured every photographic magazine I could find, from Amateur Photographer to Aperture; this was during the heyday of photo magazine publishing in the early 70s so there were plenty out there. I saved many of them for decades and then a couple of years ago I had a clear-out and disposed of Popular Photography, Modern Photography, Camera Techniques and the like (I did keep a couple for nostalgia). The magazines I hung onto were Camera (Swiss), Creative Camera and Aperture. The reason is that these magazines provide something that the internet cannot -- the beauty of a well-reproduced photograph on the printed page. This was particularly the case with Camera (Swiss), which had the most wonderful gravure reproductions until the mid-70s.

Today I subscribe to just one photographic magazine called 'Inscape' which is produced in a bedroom in Crouch End. It's not expensive and it deals with photography in a way that I like by showcasing the work of keen amateurs. Sadly it's only A5 and not very well printed.

Having said all this, I think the real problem is that today most people are very happy to look at work on their 24" flat screen monitors, which is logical since most work has been produced digitally. However, I guess there could be a space for a magazine that deals with film based content only, both on a technical and visual level. A few days ago I heard an interview with Don McCullin who said that he still does his own developing and printing; it's great that there are still professionals out there who do this and certainly there are many on this forum who do too.

 

[gns]

The same thing I want in pictures. Something that will surprise me with its originality and intelligence. In other words, I don't know.

Gary

 

[ooze]

Let me try to list what I've found most inspiring and interesting in some of the past issues of various magazines I've followed:

1) Portfolios. Good ones please. Lenswork is excellent for that. You can't please everybody; so a variety of genres, styles, techniques is called for. And the reproduction must be top notch.

2) Intelligent essays and notes. Good examples are/were the late Bill Jay, Mike Johnston and...guess who?...Roger Hicks.

3) Black and White magazine in the UK had a few pages they called "The Printer's Art". I always read that with great interest. For me, this should be around the wet darkroom. I have no interest in the digital workflow. After all, it is the wet darkroom where the alchemy, the mystery lies; hence I find the writing around it much more interesting.

4) Again, the same magazine had a section called "Master Printers", with some insightful interviews with printers. With all that decline in commercial wet printing I don't know how feasible this would be.

5) Interviews with photographers. Possibly together with a portfolio.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Dear Roger,
As the instigator of the 'magazine mediocrity' thread ( which - surprisingly is still attracting replies ) perhaps I should state my personal likes and dislikes in photographic light - reading. Amateur Photographer is the mag. that I associate you with mostly, and the one that I have received regularly, since the halcyon days of Victor Blackman, Ron Spillman etc. - so my remarks are centered around it, although I think it must be a lot more difficult to maintain interest in a weekly publication than a monthly.
Firstly the 'likes', although not always agreeing, I've enjoyed your page from day one and was quite miffed when dubious alternatives from Mr.Fuchs and Ogden Chestnutt (is he a 'real' person?) started to appear, so more power to your elbow!...creep..creep. Ivor Matanle's exellent articles are always eagerly awaited, but seem to be a little smaller of late. The wonderful Geoffrey Crawley never fails to amaze - with his knowledge and informative articles, to me - a legend!. Now a few dislikes, I have a great admiration for the Joe Cornish's and Charlie Waite's of this world - I have several books, but that style, now continued regularly by the previous year's 'photog. of the year' winner getting in on the act, is all too prevalent and landscapes like 'the old man of Storr', 'Etive Mor' (might have wrong spelling here) 'Roseberry Topping' etc. appear in all the UK mags with monotony, and like yourself - the macro flower and bug shots hold no interest for me.
So what would I like to see?, well - more articles about, and pictures by the news and documentary doyens of the past - Bert Hardy, Dennis Thorpe etc etc and also the leading lights of today - in these fields, although I appreciate it can be difficult, more travel and geographic articles. Finally as someone that does not bother with RAW images ( a well exposed JPEG is usually fine for me) and loath to spend hours on manipulation, the mass of photoshop and PC type stuff is quickly passed over, although I do appreciate that this is a big part of the hobby for many, these days.
Obviously my views and wishes, as someone well into retirement years, will differ from those of a youngster just starting out in this great pastime!
Cheers, Dave.

 

[bmasonoh]

The magazine that currently best works for me is Lenswork. Here's what I like about it:
1. No advertisements
2. No gear reviews
3. Real portfolios of real photographers
4. Great interviews

How it could be made better:
1. Make it a monthly publication
2. Include an article each month on famous photographers, i.e. Bresson, Cappa, Weston, Lange, etc. - Many younger photographer only familiar with the names but are not familiar with the people and their actual work.
3. I'd like to see an article a month of a film topic, i.e. developing, printing, techniques, chemicals, film types, etc.

Too much to ask? Probably. Not enough people seem interested in the history and process anymore.

 

[kermaier]

Let me try to list what I've found most inspiring and interesting in some of the past issues of various magazines I've followed:

1) Portfolios. Good ones please. Lenswork is excellent for that. You can't please everybody; so a variety of genres, styles, techniques is called for. And the reproduction must be top notch.

Lenswork is currently the only photography magazine I like. Superb print reproduction, interviews with photographers, usually interesting editorial essays. Long may it live.

2) Intelligent essays and notes. Good examples are/were the late Bill Jay, Mike Johnston and...guess who?...Roger Hicks.

3) Black and White magazine in the UK had a few pages they called "The Printer's Art". I always read that with great interest. For me, this should be around the wet darkroom. I have no interest in the digital workflow. After all, it is the wet darkroom where the alchemy, the mystery lies; hence I find the writing around it much more interesting.

4) Again, the same magazine had a section called "Master Printers", with some insightful interviews with printers. With all that decline in commercial wet printing I don't know how feasible this would be.

5) Interviews with photographers. Possibly together with a portfolio.

I used to love B&W Photography (UK). But ever since a series of editorial shake ups began a couple of years ago, they've been on a long slide of monotonocally declining interest. Quality of writing is down (Mike Johnston hasn't appeared in a long time); more space is given over to gear reviews (not even rigorous ones!) and advertorials than to photographers' work; quality of reproduction has suffered; and Photoshop technique is steadily displacing all other technique. My subscription renewal notice arrived with this month's issue, and with sadness I'm planning to ignore it.

So, what do I want? Lenswork, the B&W Photography of 5 years ago, and something exciting and unpretentious about the current world of photography in general (not Pop Photo, American Photo, Shutterbug, etc.).

Ari

 

[Sparrow]

The same thing I want in pictures. Something that will surprise me with its originality and intelligence. In other words, I don't know.

Gary

Absolutely, I started buying Zoom back in the early 70s, so far back in fact they were able to carry that Fuji-Girl add that members of a certain age will be fondly familiar with. Off the shelves of W H Smiths 6 issues a year, big, shiny and beautifully printed full of interesting stuff from Autochromes to challenging contemporary.

The problem was the £2.00 an issue it cost, a not inconsiderable sum in those days. I still get it most years and it’s still big, shiny and beautifully printed, probably technically better than ever, but at published by subscription only at just €7.00 now the content must be suffering to keep the unit cost down.

 

[Sparrow]

I claim nostalgia rather than chauvinism

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2749/4141180659_948748d86d_b.jpg

not safe at work

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

a centerfold.... 😱

Yes - it would probably appeal to a lot of the mag. buyers....and a lot of the contributers here!🙄