Black and White Photography magazine

[Roger Hicks]

Do you know of any plans to test the Adox CMS 20 film in forth coming issues?

'Fraid not. We've not volunteered to try it -- but maybe someone will.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ZebGoesZeiss]

1) Adox CMS 20 is gold. I would burn every single roll of Tri-X to keep that film alive. But I guess I wouldn't have to, really: There's about 10000 ft of it in my freezer 😀

2) PLEASE take that bitching in PM's or e-mail, it kind of ruins it for everyone else.

 

[Roger Hicks]

1) Adox CMS 20 is gold. I would burn every single roll of Tri-X to keep that film alive. But I guess I wouldn't have to, really: There's about 10000 ft of it in my freezer 😀

2) PLEASE take that bitching in PM's or e-mail, it kind of ruins it for everyone else.

1) Your enthusiasm well illustrates why I didn't fancy reviewing it. Those who love it, will love it. The likelihood of my loving it is slender, because I've never found a film of this type (slow, ultra-high-resolution microfilm derivative) that I have liked. This doesn't mean it's crap; it just means that I've always thought it a better idea to use a bigger format instead.

I'd be a fool to try a film that doesn't interest me, whether I were writing it up or not, and a still bigger fool to run the risk of a review which said (in effect) 'those who quite like this kind of thing will find that this is the kind of thing they quite like'.

2) It is hardly a good idea to encourage bitching and personal attacks in PMs or e-mails. Would you like to receive a PM entitled 'pompous drivel'? Because that was Pitxu's last message to me.

If insults, sniping and bitching are unsuitable for the forum, they are equally unsuitable for a PM.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ZebGoesZeiss]

1) Your enthusiasm well illustrates why I didn't fancy reviewing it. Those who love it, will love it. The likelihood of my loving it is slender, because I've never found a film of this type (slow, ultra-high-resolution microfilm derivative) that I have liked. This doesn't mean it's crap; it just means that I've always thought it a better idea to use a bigger format instead.

I'd be a fool to try a film that doesn't interest me, whether I were writing it up or not, and a still bigger fool to run the risk of a review which said (in effect) 'those who quite like this kind of thing will find that this is the kind of thing they quite like'.

2) It is hardly a good idea to encourage bitching and personal attacks in PMs or e-mails. Would you like to receive a PM entitled 'pompous drivel'? Because that was Pitxu's last message to me.

If insults, sniping and bitching are unsuitable for the forum, they are equally unsuitable for a PM.

Cheers,

R.

1) I understand that.
2) I agree, such behaviour shouldn't be tolerated neither on a forum or in PM's.

 

[Thea]

Hi all,
I am so glad I am not the only one disheartened by the latest issues of BW Magazine. I have been a subscriber since issue 4, and with heavy heart cancelled my subscription last week.
In my opinion the magazine has become too digitally orientated (If I want to read about Digital equipment, I'll buy DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY). The last straw was, for me, the letters regarding the recent penchant for nudes on the covers.
I was sad to give it up, but as others have rightly pointed out, there are other magazines to buy....
Thea

 

[sircarl]

I just got the latest issue of B&W Photography in the mail, and I'm relieved I didn't cancel my subscription, as I was thinking of. It's like a new magazine. I found the articles very informative (I now know what a "limited edition" is and how best to convert color images to mono), and the new graphic design is sharp. Thanks to recently appointed editor Elizabeth Roberts it has become much more professional. If you've gone off it, maybe you should have another look.

 

[EmilGil]

Carl, what issue is that?

I didn't renew my subscription this summer for many reasons but I might pick it up again later. I only wish they would speed up the delivery a bit, almost every issue arrived 2-4 weeks later than announced in the previous issue.

 

[sircarl]

It's September 2008 (no. 89).

 

[pfoto]

It is much better since they got rid of Corfield as editor. There's a looooong thread on APUG about all the editorial issues. The editorial staff and major contributors chime in from time to time.

 

[digihater]

As a newbie to the forum and having skimmed this thread ( I got lost in it after the war of opinion so to speak began) I wonder why with all the highly intelligent people and the vast amount of experience in here you haven't started your own B&W / Colour online pdf mag. Call me dense but it can't be that hard to put up surely or to sell via say paypal or other means.

What a waste of intellect and resources it is not to get all you people with vast amounts of experience arguing over how a mag has gone bad when you could write reams of stuff for people like me and others who know far less. Ok you post to the forum and so thats "memorialised" so to speak but how much do you all know yet have never shared, or wanted too but never did.

I would rather buy a mag in pdf format from peopel like yourselves than from some company that I perceive as a lot of people sitting behind desks dunking donuts in coffe whilst staring at the latest gift sent them for review by canon or such, However wrong I may be I perceive them as nothing more than desk jockeys who sell whatever is thrown at them by a company that may say "keep it, call it a gift" and they then feel they have to say nice things or never get another pressie, I would rather read and trust what the everyday user like you guys say.

Just a thought, ignore me, I am sure you will.

 

[peter_n]

I think most don't have the time to contribute to deadlines, this is a very casual community - members come and go. RFF has published two books of member pictures though and they are very informative in their own way.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . some company that I perceive as a lot of people sitting behind desks dunking donuts in coffe whilst staring at the latest gift sent them for review by canon or such, However wrong I may be I perceive them as nothing more than desk jockeys who sell whatever is thrown at them by a company that may say "keep it, call it a gift" and they then feel they have to say nice things or never get another pressie.

Not an accurate perception. Most magazines are far from over-staffed, and most kit has to be returned.

Yes, journalists get to try a lot of kit. But as I always say, I can't be bribed. If it's good, I'll say so even without a freebie (e.g. Contax when they were in business), and if it's not good, I won't praise it (e.g. can't say or I'd never get more kit for review, but the manufacturers know what gets reviewed and what doesn't -- and why would I want to keep kit I don't like?).

Private individuals who buy gear, on the other hand, are often under one of two pressures. Either they have to persuade themselves it was worth the money, or they're pissed off because they've spent a fortune and it isn't perfect.

Journalists aren't perfect (I know, I've been doing it for decades) but on balance I'd rather trust a journalist than someone with (a) an axe to rtind and (b) very little to compare it with.

You might care to look at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/reviews.html for what I hope are reasonably realistic reviews.

Cheers,

Roger