David Charlwood
Established
For the last sixty years, I have been an avid reader of this weekly publication. However, over the last year or so, the proportion of articles dedicated to film photography has steadily decreased to the point where the magazines content is of no interest to me. It is as if film photography is unworthy of even a mention, and only the electronic manipulation of images seems to be of interest. Lets face it, there are plenty of other magazines that fill this niche. If you really want to fiddle about with reality, throw away your camera and take up painting. Dealers that used to regularly advertise in this magazine no longer do so. I have emailed the editor, sent letters, but have not received the courtesy of a reply, let alone an explanation. What a sad end to surely an iconic publication. How does everyone else feel about this situation?
tabo
Member
You happened to post this on the very day I let my subscription lapse after eight years, and for the exact same reason. I even participated in a recent reader survey conducted by the magazine, lobbying for more coverage of film photography and vintage cameras, but clearly this fell on deaf ears. It's disappointing, but $250/year (to the US) is just too much for a publication which only rarely covers what I'm interested in.
sjw617
Panoramist
Over the past dozen years photography has gone from film based to digital. The magazine is mainstream in their change in editorial view. Film is a very small part of the world today.
I am surprised that you expect an answer from the editor - they will not get in an argument and shouldn't have to explain the change (you should already know why they have changed.) The magazine is aimed at mainstream photo enthusiast and that means digital.
Your comments about reality and painting show your viewpoint but the magazine is most likely giving the readers what they want. And your view seems a bit extreme , to me.
It is hard to find a decent magazine these days. I find that most if not all are aimed 'below' me. I know more than they are 'teaching' or discussing.
Steve
I am surprised that you expect an answer from the editor - they will not get in an argument and shouldn't have to explain the change (you should already know why they have changed.) The magazine is aimed at mainstream photo enthusiast and that means digital.
Your comments about reality and painting show your viewpoint but the magazine is most likely giving the readers what they want. And your view seems a bit extreme , to me.
It is hard to find a decent magazine these days. I find that most if not all are aimed 'below' me. I know more than they are 'teaching' or discussing.
Steve
larmarv916
Well-known
We see Amateur Photographer on new stands in the USA and over the last 10 years it has sold out to the digital wave. But the other problem is that it is almost producing articles that are of the same subject and title as other magazines ? The digital herd is by nature made up of a younger readership. But those who are not of that 18-25 demographic are ignored as if photography was only born 15 min's ago. It is sad to see how rush to digital has some how found the need to forget that photography is still tied to film. As the whole effort of the digital world is to look like film and imitate film icons in image style or outright mimicry. There is a growing backlash against this editorial authority and letter writing is still the strongest hammer. We do need new publications but the same people who are selling film are not supporting the very magazines that are dedicated to film as an art from. That is just nuts. All the best
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I'm afraid that this is simply the reality of producing a magazine, especially so in the e-era. Majority rules and any publication needs to sell enough to keep going whilst keeping costs to a bare minimum...including 'wasting' space on articles that will be of interest only to a tiny minority. I'm saying all of this but am sure you are aware of these constraints.
AP was a great help to me as a young lad interested in photography and hoping to make a career out of it. Infact I received my first critical mauling at the hands of their Reader's Photos expert, not the last by any means! In the end I felt the usual carousel affect of article rotation meant it was time for me to move on, though I'm still grateful for all the tips and knowledge they shared.
AP was a great help to me as a young lad interested in photography and hoping to make a career out of it. Infact I received my first critical mauling at the hands of their Reader's Photos expert, not the last by any means! In the end I felt the usual carousel affect of article rotation meant it was time for me to move on, though I'm still grateful for all the tips and knowledge they shared.
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I too have been a regular reader (for about fifty years) and am now thinking about canceling my weekly copy for similar reasons. I do not however waste my time writing to editors - pleading for change, as any publication that did not move with the times, and give what the majority of readers want would soon go under. Yes - it would be fun to have a magazine that tested old film cameras ( not many new ones to test, are there? ) and reviewed black and white film, chemistry etc. etc., but it would be satisfying a small minority of mainly older eccentrics (myself included) that frequent places such as this!. I enjoy my hobby with both digital and film ( sorry-it's analogue now! ) cameras, but pratting about with my pictures on the PC a lot - does not interest me, so the vast majority of photo magazines are a waste of my meagre resources!. The bottom line is - resign yourself to modern trends, and the current 'way of the world' and just enjoy your pastimes the way you like, and the way you are able.
Dave.
Dave.
Mauros
Diehard
Just subscribe some magazine about photography, not equipment it will solve your problem. The rest you'll find over the web.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Sage advise ,David. Camera clubs ,at least in the UK ,reflect a similar propensity so I `m getting to be an infrequent visitor to mine.
I think most of us here use both film and digital.
I do but "pratting about" ,as Dave puts it ,isn`t my cup of tea either.
At my club they swop bits of images between each other.
"I`ve got a woman in a red dress that would look good in that picture".
Some seem to take the same sky with them were ever they go.
Nothing wrong with it but it doesn`t interest me .
Neither does wet printing come to think of it.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I remember going along to a local camera club's exhibition night when I was sixteen or seventeen as I'd been thinking it may help me along a bit if I was a member. I was shocked at the sheer number of incredibly dull images and poorly constructed photo montages. Perhaps it was a fad at the time, digital hadn't arrived for the masses at that point. Clearly I don't think all camera clubs are the same but it was enough to put me off joining. Maybe I was wrong but it seemed as if everyone did the same kind of thing, in the same style and using the same techniques.
Anyway, I don't wish to hijack the thread!
More on topic, are there any decent photography magazines in the UK? I used to subscribe to the British Journal of Photography which was great for industry news, new products and interviews etc...no 'how to' articles though as I remember.
Anyway, I don't wish to hijack the thread!
More on topic, are there any decent photography magazines in the UK? I used to subscribe to the British Journal of Photography which was great for industry news, new products and interviews etc...no 'how to' articles though as I remember.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Simon
BJP is now an upmarket monthly at £6.99 a pop.
Beautifully put together. Content much as you remember it.
Michael
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Maybe I should renew my subscription Michael. I find that working by myself and being very busy means I miss out, or at least feel like I do, on much that is happening in the industry generally.
Mark Wood
Well-known
Interestingly, a few years ago, when Garry Coward-Williams was the Editor of AP, I sent in an e-mail questioning a test they'd done on the Minox 35GTE where it appeared to be impossible to get a sharp photograph out of it. As I suspected, they'd been sent a UK model with the scale marked in feet but had assumed it was marked in metres. I had an almost instant reply from Garry, who looked into my query straight away. The camera was re-tested and an apology appeared in the next issue, followed by the corrected test results, so you can get replies from Editors who care!
Whilst it would be ridiculous to expect the magazine to shift its emphasis from all things digital, I don't think it would be out of order to have expected AP to have tested Kodak Ektar (a proper Geoffrey Crawley test) and possibly even the Bessa III. There's barely been a word about either, yet I seem to recall a test of Ektar being promised.
I am also getting very tired of paying my quarterly subscription, only to open the current issue and find a two page advert showing that the rate for new subscribers is considerably lower than I've just paid. Yes, I know I can renew my subscription every year but in view of the competition from other magazines and the current economic climate, you might have thought that the publishers would feel they ought to value customer loyalty.
Whilst it would be ridiculous to expect the magazine to shift its emphasis from all things digital, I don't think it would be out of order to have expected AP to have tested Kodak Ektar (a proper Geoffrey Crawley test) and possibly even the Bessa III. There's barely been a word about either, yet I seem to recall a test of Ektar being promised.
I am also getting very tired of paying my quarterly subscription, only to open the current issue and find a two page advert showing that the rate for new subscribers is considerably lower than I've just paid. Yes, I know I can renew my subscription every year but in view of the competition from other magazines and the current economic climate, you might have thought that the publishers would feel they ought to value customer loyalty.
tom_uk
Established
The great majority of amateur photographers in the UK do indeed use digital, so it's not surprising that a magazine avowedly catering to that audience has reflected that change. I expect that 50 or 60 years ago, some of its readers were unhappy about the increased coverage of 35mm - roll-film was the real thing! And some decades before that, I imagine that the increased coverage of roll-film cameras was bemoaned by those still using cut film.
AP reflects the times, it doesn't make them. It's interesting to look back over old issues: I have copies of some of their annual 'glamour photography' special issue; very redolent of their time, but I think Gary Coward-Williams made the right decision to stop them in the early noughties.
It's interesting that several of the AP team, including editor Damien Demolder, have got experience using Leicas. There have been a number of articles over the last ten years covering RF issues, including reviews of the CV and Zeiss cameras, a comparative review of Leica vs CV vs Zeiss, a number of lens reviews, and reviews of the M7 and MP, as well as review of the M8, M8.2 and M9. Given the comparatively slow pace of change in the RF world, I think AP has if anything given our favourite cameras favoured coverage. And of course there are Roger Hicks' columns most weeks.
I understand that for those who stick exclusively to film, there is less and less in AP to interest them. As someone who uses both film and digital I still find it a very interesting magazine. This week's issue has a good review of the latest Micro4/3 camera (and AP has covered this interesting technology in considerable depth since it appeared), along with one of Ivor Matanle's historical articles, this time about the Canon FT range. I ever had one of these, but I remember badly wanting a FTQL in the early 70s.
I'll stick with AP.
AP reflects the times, it doesn't make them. It's interesting to look back over old issues: I have copies of some of their annual 'glamour photography' special issue; very redolent of their time, but I think Gary Coward-Williams made the right decision to stop them in the early noughties.
It's interesting that several of the AP team, including editor Damien Demolder, have got experience using Leicas. There have been a number of articles over the last ten years covering RF issues, including reviews of the CV and Zeiss cameras, a comparative review of Leica vs CV vs Zeiss, a number of lens reviews, and reviews of the M7 and MP, as well as review of the M8, M8.2 and M9. Given the comparatively slow pace of change in the RF world, I think AP has if anything given our favourite cameras favoured coverage. And of course there are Roger Hicks' columns most weeks.
I understand that for those who stick exclusively to film, there is less and less in AP to interest them. As someone who uses both film and digital I still find it a very interesting magazine. This week's issue has a good review of the latest Micro4/3 camera (and AP has covered this interesting technology in considerable depth since it appeared), along with one of Ivor Matanle's historical articles, this time about the Canon FT range. I ever had one of these, but I remember badly wanting a FTQL in the early 70s.
I'll stick with AP.
normclarke
normclarke
A P
A P
Gave up about 2 years ago, after about 66 years on and off. Most of the reasons agree with the consensus here. Geoffrey Crawley still interests me but not much of the other content. I'm pragmatic enough to understand their leanings but just have little interest with the digital scene. Used to be great in the old days though.
Best,
normclarke.
A P
Gave up about 2 years ago, after about 66 years on and off. Most of the reasons agree with the consensus here. Geoffrey Crawley still interests me but not much of the other content. I'm pragmatic enough to understand their leanings but just have little interest with the digital scene. Used to be great in the old days though.
Best,
normclarke.
Turtle
Veteran
I got bored in about five or six years ago as digital tweaking became the norm. Used to cover things I could not find in other mags and despite being a youngster in relative terms I enjoyed the vintage camera articles and various more intellectual contributions. Photoshop this and that can be found in any of about ten mags on the shelf. Boooooring (even when it is useful). Thats what books and online tutorials and courses are for IMO. The craft and creativity has vanished from teh mag.
Graham Line
Well-known
Same thing happened with me, after subscribing since 1999. My problem is not the absence of film articles (who could expect many in the current market?) but with the current heavy reliance on landscape photography to the relative exclusion of most other areas.
On the other hand, the U.S.-based Popular Photography has improved a great deal since the recent change in editors and ownership. It's worth the $14.99 for a year subscription, anyway.
John Lawrence
Well-known
I stopped buying it shortly after Garry Coward-Williams left to become group magazines editor, as the articles ceased to interest me.
There does seem to be a surfeit of digital photography magazines out there though, but I guess this is down to the relative "newness" of digital photography and, as with all these things, every publisher jumps on the bandwagon and puts out a title. Nothing new there though. Back in the sixties there were all sorts of different magazines catering for 35mm photography, seperate ones for SLRs (anyone remember SLR User?) etc. etc. Most folded after a few years leaving the old stalwarts AP and Practical Photography, and I'd hazard a guess the same will happen with the current crop of "Which Landscape Digital SLR Practical User" magazines.
John
There does seem to be a surfeit of digital photography magazines out there though, but I guess this is down to the relative "newness" of digital photography and, as with all these things, every publisher jumps on the bandwagon and puts out a title. Nothing new there though. Back in the sixties there were all sorts of different magazines catering for 35mm photography, seperate ones for SLRs (anyone remember SLR User?) etc. etc. Most folded after a few years leaving the old stalwarts AP and Practical Photography, and I'd hazard a guess the same will happen with the current crop of "Which Landscape Digital SLR Practical User" magazines.
John
Andy Kibber
Well-known
$250 per year! The magazine had better be printed on gold leaf for that kind of money. I know it's a weekly, but still ...
Gazzah
RF newbie
I was just sitting here thinking to myself "I must logon and cancel my order for AP" and saw this thread - when this weeks arrived I flicked through it and as usual I read one item then skipped over the adds and read Mr Ogden Chestnuts peice at the back, the "final frame", wether its Chestnut or Mr Hicks is always the best bit. I have now cancelled my sub...
Gary H
Gary H
David Charlwood
Established
Amateur Photographer
Amateur Photographer
Thank you everybody for your responses and opinions. Despite what some members have inferred, I am not a luddite - I recognise progress and new technology - otherwise I would not have spent 28 years flying jet aeroplanes. All I ever required from AP was an even balance. I do not think that the current editor will change the existing format. I will continue to purchase and use film, but sadly, my involvement with AP is at an end.
Regards to you all.
Amateur Photographer
Thank you everybody for your responses and opinions. Despite what some members have inferred, I am not a luddite - I recognise progress and new technology - otherwise I would not have spent 28 years flying jet aeroplanes. All I ever required from AP was an even balance. I do not think that the current editor will change the existing format. I will continue to purchase and use film, but sadly, my involvement with AP is at an end.
Regards to you all.